Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact


The process of overthrowing, destroying, or corrupting. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.

IN 1916 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT definitively settled all questions concerning the meaning and effect of the then-recently adopted 16th Amendment. Its unanimous ruling, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 240 U.S. 1, reaffirms an already-well-established chain of Supreme Court rulings that the income tax is and always has been an excise (privilege) tax.

The Brushaber court makes clear that the tax remains an excise after the 16th Amendment and that in no way whatever does the amendment authorize a non-apportioned direct tax, confused notions of plaintiff Frank Brushaber to the contrary notwithstanding:

"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th 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...”

Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

After generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support the erroneous conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a power to levy an income tax which is both direct and not subject to the regulation of apportionment, the Brushaber court goes on to point out that the very suggestion of a non-apportioned direct tax is crazy, because that would cause:

“...one provision of the Constitution [to] destroy another; that is, [it] would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment [supposedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned."


The purpose and effect of the 16th amendment, the court says, is merely the over-ruling of a mistaken 1895 decision that when applied to dividends and rent, taxation must be viewed by light of the personal-property sources from which those particular gains are derived. Based on that faulty reasoning, the 1895 court had held that even the then-33-year-old income tax, when applied to such gains, must be treated as a property tax requiring apportionment.

The Brushaber court's ruling that the income tax remains an excise and non-apportioned direct taxes remain prohibited is subsequently reaffirmed and recognized as the law of the land in every particular by repeated Supreme Courts and by legislative, executive and private legal professional experts over and over again down through the decades since, as is shown in this modest sampling of instances:

“[B]y the [Brushaber] ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916);

"If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 12."

Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937);

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than ... an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."

Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev., p. 536 (1915-1916);

"The income tax ... is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” ... "[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty..."

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, p. 2580, testimony of former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard;

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"

Report No. 80-19A, 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws' by Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress (1979).

The income tax is an excise, and non-apportioned direct taxes are Constitutionally-prohibited. This is the thoroughly settled law of the land, and every institution of government knows it.

HOWEVER, STARTING IN THE EARLY 1940s, the United States and many state governments stealthily launch a scheme to exploit what had by then become widespread public confusion about the nature of the tax (due to the diligent dis-information efforts of Progressives intent on implementing this scheme). The object of the scheme is the birth, care and feeding of an unrestrained Leviathan state, in defiance of the Constitution.

The scheme consists of two elements. The first is the nurturing of a myth that the 16th Amendment DOES authorize a direct tax (thus, one on "all that comes in", rather than only on privilege-related gains to which excise taxes are inherently confined) without the apportionment requirement.

The second element of the "ignorance tax" scheme is the establishment of a tax-related paperwork structure that induces people not involved in privilege-related activities to unknowingly mischaracterize their gains as though they are. This creates a legal pretext for collecting the income tax as the excise that it is, but where it does not objectively apply.

Between them the two elements of the scheme facilitate the wide and largely un-resisted misapplication of the tax, and that's just what was thoroughly underway by 1945. A river of wealth began flowing into Washington and about three dozen state capitals.

WITHIN TEN YEARS of the "ignorance tax" scheme being proven effective the remarkably clear and truth-revealing 1939 Internal Revenue Code is (otherwise inexplicably) replaced in its entirety as official evidence of the law by a 1954 version that is a masterful exercise in obfuscation. Within twenty-five years more, federal judges at the district and appellate court levels begin systematically lying about the Brushaber court ruling and the actual nature of the income tax:

“[T]he income tax is a direct tax,... See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 242, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax "out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes")."

United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1980)

“The Supreme Court promptly determined in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Ry. Co.., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916), that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax.”

Parker v. Comm'r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984)

“For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax..., see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., , 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916).”

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990)

WOW! These lies-- by panels of actual US appellate court judges, in actual rulings by which actual Americans suffered actual and substantial harm-- are grossly, egregiously and staggeringly criminal, and so glaringly false as to raise the specter of dementia. This is the sort of behavior that should land these judges in prison, if not facilities for the criminally insane.

These lies are also fundamentally despotic in nature and purpose. This fact is ironically underscored by the 1984 date of the Parker ruling quoted above.

Like the other judicial lies about Brushaber and its law-of-the-land ruling concerning the nature of the income tax and the ongoing Constitutional prohibition of any kind of non-apportioned direct tax, the Parker court's falsehoods seek to exploit a dynamic George Orwell insightfully explained in his book, 1984: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The object of all the judicial lies is to enable the perpetuation of the "ignorance tax" scheme by corruptly falsifying history.

All told, the behavior exposed above is nothing less than subversion. These judges-- and their present-day mimics, co-conspirators and enablers-- were and are oath-breaking enemies of the Constitution, engaged in a deliberate and sustained assault on the rule of law in America.

An in-depth but concise discussion of the assault, with evidence, details as to its reasons and effects, and links to further information, can be found at losthorizons.com/TaxFraud.pdf. It will make electrifyingly clear just what is and has been going on.

A video of a presentation of this material which I made on Sunday, July 16, 2017 to a small gathering of activists can be seen here.

A call to action

CLEARLY, THE MERE AIRING OF THESE CRIMES is not enough. What is revealed here is a vicious widespread plot to destroy our Constitutional republic. It can be stopped, and it must be stopped, and all culpable parties-- who have each and every one grossly betrayed and defiled the trust and honor the people of America have bestowed upon them-- should be harshly punished. Therefore...

I call on the US Attorney General to immediately convene grand juries and seek indictments of every IRS apparatchik and DOJ Tax Division attorney making arguments or assertions echoing or reflecting the lies about the income tax exposed above, and of any and all officials who attempt to hinder, obstruct or disable this process. I don't know the specific charges which would be appropriate in either case, but I'm sure the clever folks at the DOJ can think of plenty.

If AG Sessions fails to act, I call on the president to immediately replace him with an Attorney General with greater respect for the rule of law, and to add the corrupt AG to the list of those against whom indictments are sought.

I call on the Speaker of the House to immediately convene impeachment proceedings against every single judge at every level of the Article I and III judiciary who has participated in this subversion of the law and the infliction of associated harm upon any litigant or defendant.

I call on every law-respecting journalist to raise the hue and cry about these outrages.

I urge every American reading these words to join me in this demand for action.

Append this article or this video (or both) to an introductory note and a demand for action, and mail it to the AG, the Speaker, your federal and state congressional delegations and to every journalist possible. This will ensure that these folks will be made aware of this matter, and cannot say otherwise as an excuse for inaction.

Here are some contact links:

The AG

The Speaker of the House

Journalists (this is a short list-- you may know or have access to more; send to all of them)

Your representative

Your senators

Your state legislators

Your mom, your dad, your sibs, your best friend, the guys and gals at the office or the plant, etc.-- you have these addresses or must find them on your own.

ALSO!!! Send to law school faculty!!! Find schools, faculty names and contact info however you can and send! Send to every lawyer you can find.

We will discover if any of these office-holders retain a shred of respect for the rule of law, and if so, who they are. Those whom we discover do not will go on the list of people needing to be shorn of their positions of trust and honor.


P. S. An order for a book arrived at the house last week accompanied by a note in which this is said:

"I am so glad there are Americans like you still. I am new to USA I been here for 5 years, and I love the country. The reason I love it cause I love the constitution of it and the real concept of being American a truly freeman that was the intent of the founder father.

In addition, it does shock me the American people just having fun, going from party to another and getting more ignorant about their basic rights.

I came from North Africa, and the way I see this country going is worse than where I am coming from.

Back home everyone know there is corruption but here people still believe America is the land of the free while you can't keep your own earnings, you can't even do what you want on your own land, they changed all the rights to be privileges with permissions and licenses.

I am wonder how people do not see it, I am 32 years old and been here only 5 years and its clear to me as the sun clear to me in the sunniest day ever.

I hope they will wake up before it is too late."

I hope so, too. The blatantly obvious crimes laid out above amount to a serious wake-up call if ever there was one.

So, seriously. Make some serious noise about it.

I know that I have issued many calls for such activism over the years. Some of you may have grown a bit weary of hearing them, and frustrated because though the ranks of the educated and activated continue to steadily grow, the explosion of awareness we need remains elusive despite these prior calls for action.

I am very sympathetic to such frustrations; in fact no one suffers from them more than I do. But I want you all to consider this: Communicating merely the truth about the tax as a legal matter is a challenge.

The problem is simple and obvious. However unmistakable the evidence that can be presented to anyone willing to sit and study it for some time, and think about it for an even longer time, that study and contemplation is necessary.

Even showing the evil but complicated fraudulent behavior of the IRS in such things as the "frivolous penalty hoax" and other institutional efforts to evade or discourage the truth, is hard, for the same reasons.

Generally the only people who will devote such study and attention to a subject are those already inclined toward what it is they are being shown. Those who are not will afford the teacher a few minutes, and nothing more. Only one out of ten not already inclined will invest as needed to learn what is being taught.

But this revelation of executive and judicial corruption needs only twenty minutes of reading to be glaringly clear, and its implications concerning matters keenly of interest to every American leap out.

This material represents a break-out opportunity. Purge yourself of all jaundice and jade, and send this exposé to EVERYONE.

 P. P. S. Take note: There is no body of flat-out desperate lies of the sort described above deployed in defense of any other government thing. That is because nothing else is remotely as much the source of, and vital to, Leviathan's power and health.

Only the income tax scheme is supported with falsifications like these, because it is the income tax scheme that IS the source of, and vital to, Leviathan's power and health.

Understand this, and communicate this: The income tax scheme is Leviathan's "One Ring". When it is unmade, Leviathan's evil power collapses, and the Founders' limited republic is restored.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

– Martin Luther King Jr.