Is U.S. income tax invalid?

They said it would never happen…I was ridiculed for suggesting it…Now, using information from this thread….

Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability -

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking people's property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told the press just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front. Cryer said the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.


"There are three points that are important," he said. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office replied that the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer said. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions."

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.


Who can disagree with that?

For those of you fortunate enough to have missed this report; I don't see why I should suffer alone, and therefore I reproduce (in full) this unbelievable story.

The New York Times

I.R.S. Laments It's Too Poor To Pry Loose Billions Due

The Internal Revenue Service told lawmakers today that it could not go after every overdue tax bill and needed help from collection professionals who specialized in making persistent telephone calls.

The sum of uncollected taxes is mounting faster than tax collectors can handle. The I.R.S. said about $13 billion was owed by taxpayers who could and would pay, if someone asked.

The agency wants to give private companies 2.6 million cases a year eventually in an effort to catch people who dodge taxes on the assumption that the agency is too busy to track them down.

''They are taking advantage of the fact that the I.R.S. cannot continually pursue each taxpayer who fails to pay an outstanding tax liability,'' the agency's commissioner, Mark W. Everson, said at a House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing.

The subcommittee's chairman, Representative Amo Houghton, Republican of New York, introduced a bill to give the agency authority to draw up the contracts. ''We're trying to solve a problem,'' he said. ''We don't have the money to do it right now.''

Like the tax bill advancing through the Senate, Mr. Houghton's bill would give the I.R.S. authority to hire outside agencies to collect unpaid taxes and to keep up to 25 percent of the money they collect.

The agency will not hand over any of its enforcement powers to private companies. Congressional tax experts estimate that the program would net the Treasury $1 billion over the next decade.

Some lawmakers say it would be less costly and more efficient to give the agency more money to hire its own collectors. Referring to a Pentagon spending controversy in the Reagan administration, Representative Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota, said, ''This is the $600 toilet seat of tax collection.''

Government boards that oversee the I.R.S. tepidly endorsed the idea but warned that the agency must protect taxpayers' privacy and reverse its poor record of overseeing contractors.

The agency's taxpayer advocate offered a stern warning that her office would watch the program closely. The advocate, Nina Olson, said, ''I must state at the outset that I have a level of discomfort with the concept of using private collection agencies based on my earlier professional experiences'' representing taxpayers in states that used them.

Some tax professionals, consumer advocates and I.R.S. union officials strongly oppose the plan and say the agency can collect the debt itself if Congress would give it the budget and staff to do the job.

''This scheme is costly, risky and would lead to a gross invasion of the privacy of American taxpayers,'' said Colleen Kelly, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.

The Treasury Department said the companies would be told to ask nicely and not badger or frighten taxpayers. Such behavior can get an I.R.S. employee fired.

''I want to stress in the strongest possible terms,'' that private collectors would be prohibited from threatening or intimidating taxpayers, Mr. Everson said.

The agency needs Congressional approval for the program because current law prohibits anyone other than a government employee from collecting taxes. Twenty-three collection companies have already shown interest in participating.

If approved, the companies would contact anyone who filed a return showing a balance due but not paid, and anyone who made three or more payments on an installment plan and stopped paying.

The collection agency would send a letter to the taxpayer, then follow with a telephone call. The bill collector could not contact family members, neighbors or employers to track down taxpayers who had moved. Taxpayers would be asked to pay their bills in full or agree to pay in installments for up to three years.

Rozanne Andersen, representing the credit and collection industry, told lawmakers that the program would not succeed if the agency turned over only old and stale accounts with no chance of collection.

''I would remind you that in order for the project to be successful, the collection agencies must have an opportunity to make money,'' she said.



You couldn't make this nonsense up!

History shows us the mistakes of our ancestors, and as such can give us warning of what's to come. I would therefore suggest that those of you with stocks bonds, shares etc should watch the stock market very careful this morning as I fear it is about to take a severe downturn.

Dyslexia wrote on another thread:


Quote -

6 months ago "sub-prime" didn't exist in our vocabulary and now every media "economist" is an expert. Likewise with the "housing problem." Does it occur that the sub-prime loans only account for 1% of housing financing and some geographical areas became over-build/over-priced?

Yes indeed there are some indicators of an economic slump such as rising unemployment stats but, we even have people on a2k talking about our "current" recession" when there is no more than the possibility of a future recession of which I can only find a few economists that think we are heading there.

What we do have is a slow-down in the rate of increase of the GDP; we also have a media interest in hyping; be it the war in Iraq; the WAR between Hillary and O'bama; climate change and the foreign debt we owe to China.

All the above are real issues but just how real are they? I don't know and I'm sure the majority of US citizens don't know either because we really don't get factual information from our media to make good judgements.

Bear Stearns bailed out by Fed and JPMorgan
14 March 2008 4:34 PM

NEW YORK (AP) - Bear Stearns Cos., one of Wall Street's venerable investment banks, received a bailout today by the federal government and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in a surprise, last-ditch effort to save the 86-year old institution.

The Federal Reserve responded swiftly to pleas from Bear Stearns that its coffers had "significantly deteriorated" within a 24-hour period. Central bankers backed an arrangement to bolster the company, and stood ready to provide extra resources to combat a credit crisis that now threatens one of America's biggest financial institutions.

Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, made its fortune dealing in opaque mortgage-backed securities -- a strategy that might be its undoing amid the worst housing slump in a quarter century. The bank has racked up $2.75 billion in write-downs since last year, and faced a possible collapse without some kind of lifeline.

Bear Stearns lost half of its value within 30 minutes of the market open, before clawing back a bit to be down 41 percent, or $23.51, at $33.49 by midday. The news rattled investors, pushing the Dow Jones industrial average down about 150 points.

JPMorgan Chase, the nation's third-largest bank, agreed to pump more money into Bear Stearns to keep it in business, but did not divulge how much it was spending. Top executives from both companies were in talks, and were even considering the outright sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan, according to a person familiar with the talks who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Bear Stearns said in a statement that it is working with JPMorgan Chase to find permanent strategic alternatives to alleviate their cash problems.

JPMorgan Chase -- which has been hurt far less by the mortgage morass than other investment banks -- is providing secured funding to Bear Stearns for 28 days, backstopped by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Bear Stearns and the Fed approached JPMorgan Chase about the financing and a potential deal, according to the person familiar with the talks.

Rumors have persisted throughout the week that Bear Stearns was facing major cash flow problems, but the investment bank's chief executive initially denied those rumors.

"Bear Stearns has been the subject of a multitude of market rumors regarding our liquidity," the bank's president and chief executive, Alan Schwartz, said in a statement Friday. "Amidst this market chatter, our liquidity position in the last 24 hours had significantly deteriorated."

In a memo sent to employees, Schwartz said the temporary financing would allow the company to "get back to business as usual."

The company has struggled since the middle of last year because of the fallout in the mortgage and credit markets. Last summer, two hedge funds worth billions of dollars managed by Bear Stearns collapsed because of bad bets on securities backed by subprime mortgages -- loans given to customers with poor credit history.

JPMorgan Chase said the financing would not expose its company to any material risk, though its shares dropped 1.4 percent, or 53 cents to $37.58.



How many days since the Fed pumped in 200 billion!

I was listening to jim rogers the other week and he was saying how bear stearns paid their executives BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses back in January so thats one reason they did the deal the way they did..

Had they just declared bankruptcy those executives would have had to give their big bonuses back...

Sorry I missed your reply Richard; but you are totally correct. Mind you, there is more than one system running through the banking business…



A conversation between a Customer and Bank of America (true story)


Bank: This is the Bank of America, can I help you?

Customer: Yes, I want to cancel my account. I don't want to do business with you any longer.

Bank: Why?

Customer: You're giving credit to illegal immigrants and I don't think it's right. I'm taking my business elsewhere.

Bank: Well, Mr. Customer, we don't want to see you do that, but we can't stop you. I'll help you close the account. What is your account number?

Customer: (gives account number)

Bank: For security purposes and for your protection, can you please give me the last four digits of your social security number?

Customer: No!
Bank: Mr. Customer, I need to verify your information, but in order to help you, I'll need verification of who you are.

Customer: Why should I give you my social security number? The reason I'm closing my account is that your bank is issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants who don't have social security numbers. You are targeting that audience and want their business. Let's say I'm an illegal immigrant and you've given me a credit card. I have a question about it and call for assistance. You wouldn't be asking me for a Social Security number, would you?

Bank: No sir, I wouldn't.
Customer: Why not

Bank: Because you would have pressed '2' to speak in Spanish. We don't ask for that information when calling in on the Spanish line.



If you don't believe it; ring and press option 2.

The quest continues to uncover the truth...

Almost 100 years ago it was written:

"Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Registration Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly.

The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America."

" Colonel Edward Mandell House.

He was an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, the US president who was arm twisted into surrendering America to the bankers in 1913 - when the FED - the central bank was created.


Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Dukes and the Mellons. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street powers including: Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed.

The Round Table Group wanted to control the people by having the government tax people and deposit the people's money in a central bank.
The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent.

The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused at the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System.

Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted.

These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Group member's private corporations and the University system.

The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channelled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson 28th President of the United States
In his first term, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913.

Thank you Democrats.

I prefer "matriculated" income tax.

If you're so against taxation and it's allegedly non-existant benefits, let me suggest you move to a lawless corner of the world where taxes are impossible to collect.

How's the Democratic Republic of Congo sound to you? Or Zimbabwe? Or Haiti if you want to stay in the same hemisphere and try your luck at getting some relief money du jour. You'll never pay taxes again or suffer the benefits of the country's public infrastructure like a police department, a fire department, or a public education system should you have any children. Or paved roads. Or cleared and protected waterways. Quite luxurious living indeed.

Or if you dying to die on a tropic island... how about the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific? You'll be living in luxury as the ...

GDP - per capita (PPP):
$2,600 (2009 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bp.html

I just love it when people complain about taxes.

That's the most sensible thing I read from you in weeks.

Welcome Tsarstepan it is indeed a pleasure to see such an interesting and intelligent person contributing to a thread dedicated to the discovery of the truth.

I am sure Parados (God, how I miss those two guys) would be delighted that you have chosen to take up his mantle.

However, I fear you are at a disadvantage as you appear to have misappropriated your time in the search for disparaging remarks (more about that later) instead of reading the subject under discussion.


" If you're so against taxation and it's allegedly non-existant benefits, let me suggest you move to a lawless corner of the world where taxes are impossible to collect."

At NO time have I or anyone else stated taxes per se are unnecessary or do not provide benefits in kind.


The point in question as the title suggests is:
Is Personal Income Tax Legal according to the Constitution?



Apportionment of direct taxes:

Language elsewhere in the Constitution also expressly limits the taxing power. Article I, Section 9 has more than one clause so addressed. Clause 4 states:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Generally, a direct tax is subject to the apportionment rule, meaning taxes must be imposed among the states in proportion to each state's population in respect to that state's share of the whole national population.

For example: As of the 2000 Census, nearly 34 million people populated California (CA). At the same time, the national population was 281.5 million people. This gave CA a 12 percent share of the national population, roughly. Were Congress to impose a direct tax in order to raise $1 trillion before the next census, the taxpayers of CA would be required to fund 12 percent of the total amount: $120 billion dollars.

Before 1895, direct taxes were understood to be limited to "capitation or poll taxes" (Hylton v. United States) and "taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate" (Springer v. United States).

The decision in Springer went further in declaring all income taxes were indirect taxes"or more specifically, "within the category of an excise or duty." However, in 1895 income taxes derived from property such as interest, dividends, and rent (imposed under an 1894 Act) were treated as direct taxes by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and were ruled to be subject to the requirement of apportionment. As the income taxes imposed under the 1894 Act were not apportioned in such a manner, they were held unconstitutional.

It was not the income tax per se, but the lack of a provision for its apportionment as a direct tax which made the tax unconstitutional.



Whilst your concern for my welfare is admirable...

"How's the Democratic Republic of Congo sound to you? Or Zimbabwe? Or Haiti if you want to stay in the same hemisphere and try your luck at getting some relief money du jour."

Your use of French is poignant as two of the destinations were French colonies and the other British. However, you omitted Biloxi; which after the defeat of France in the seven years war it was ceded to Britain.

Perhaps history is not your forte when you write:


"You'll never pay taxes again or suffer the benefits of the country's public infrastructure like a police department [1], a fire department [2], or a public education system[3] should you have any children. Or paved roads [4]. Or cleared and protected waterways [5]. Quite luxurious living indeed".


[1] May I respectfully point out that; The New York City Police Department (NYPD), established in 1845, and is currently the largest police force in the United States.

[2] The origins of the New York City Fire Department can be traced back to 1648.

[3] Whilst I concede Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut.

Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty.

As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853.

[4] Modern road asphalt was the work of Belgian immigrant Edward de Smedt at Columbia University in New York City. By 1872, De Smedt had engineered a modern, "well-graded," maximum-density asphalt. The first uses of this road asphalt were in Battery Park and on Fifth Avenue in New York City in 1872 and on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C., in 1877.

[5] I think you will find the Erie Canal was finished in 1825, and was responsible for New York's new nickname: "The Empire State."

Now correct me if I'm wrong in my calculations but all these institutions' and many more were in place BEFORE the imposition of personal income tax.


"I am, and I'm willing to work very hard at this because this is what I love to do. If my vision differs from yours and this isn't your cup of tea I'm not going to fault you for that.

But at the same time I'd love for you to give me more of a chance. If not, well I wish you luck anyway wherever you go and I'm sorry if things didn't work out how you would have liked."


Back to...

Setanta wrote:

"Well, good luck, Bubba . . . but keep your snottiness to yourself. I haven't claimed to be the final, unassailable expert in this matter. If you want to challenge the income tax, help yourself.
And don't expect any sympathy from me, or most other tax payers, if you wind up in prison, or have your assets seized."


I suspect you and Setanta are kindred souls, compassionate and generous with an appreciation of art and literature but with a countenance that does not treat fools kindly.

However, if you place Set's text in a numbered block octagonal formation and superimpose a acute isosceles triangle over an obtuse one, you will see that the points where the lines intersect spells:

"I love you"

I am not at liberty to divulge if the feeling is mutual.


"True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are persons in this world who find these things more difficult.

If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you."


Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or as they say in Biloxi; . Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

What is a Buckeye ?

C'mon, Tryagain. Even you have to realize that an amendment made that 'moot' when it comes to income taxes.






That is certainly a misleading statement about Pollock. Pollock ONLY ruled about income taxes related to income from rents and municipal bonds being unconstitutional. It never ruled on income tax in general so Springer and Brushaber would still hold that income taxes on wages is constitutional.

Again, it all became moot when the 16th amendment was passed.

Actually, that statement would be factually incorrect. The first US income tax was imposed during the civil war. Your list included items that occurred after that time period.

But this all goes back to the question...
The ONLY answer is YES. A resounding YES based on the 16th amendment. That would be the only truth out there.
Claiming the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified is not an attempt to find the truth at all. It is an attempt to try to muddy the waters with crap that the courts have already thrown out for the crap it is.

Ok; the time has come to stop dancing round the room and confront the elephant...

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so.

They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!).

States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s).

This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that its authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox.

The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

Total, utter and absolute proof that personal income tax is unlawful - end of story!

Always best to pretend there is an elephant when the US Supreme Court has declared that argument you just made is invalid and lower courts have declared such an argument is frivolous in any defense of not paying person taxes.

But look at the elephant.... What? Don't you see it? It's right there....