64 votes

Income Tax Gets Supreme Court Review

Well, It seems that this issue, constantly branded "frivolous" by many lower courts, now gets docketed by the Supreme Court. After 25 years or more, doing my own research, and studying the writings of other researchers, such as Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Irwin Schiff, Dave Champion, Tom Cryer, and others, the issue may finally get a hearing. Notice I didn't say FAIR hearing. In order to bring the income tax regulations back in line with the Constitution, (and standing black letter law, and previous supreme court decisions) the government must walk away from a lucrative revenue stream they are comfortable with, and start funding the government via other means, eg. Tarrifs, excises, and imposts. And, they must stop treating earnings of individuals as a government privilege.
Just the act of docketing this case has erdicated the government's phony tactic of declaring similar positions "frivolous."
"Let justice be done, though the Heavens fall."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Do you have an update for us?

I think about you often, hopefully we're all thinking about you.

You are a very courageous man, I commend you for your efforts!

Update for those that want to know

Received notice from the court that they denied my Motion for Reconsideration of having to file the docket fee, as well as having to professionally redo the entire writ to attorney standards (even against the court's own previous rulings on substance being more important than form).

This means I now have till February 18th, 2013 to come up with the $300 docket fee, as well as approximately $1500-2000 for professionally printing at least 48 copies of the writ (40 plus original for the court and 3 for IRS). Anyone who can help with this can make donations here: foundationfortruthinlaw.org/funding.html

Complete Supreme Court case document of all below S.Ct. docs filed in the case to date

I filed a document titled US Supreme Court Motion for ORDER on Settled Facts of Law. This is regarding the default by IRS/DOJ to answer the case and argument as stated below.

After filing with the court, Respondent (DOJ for IRS) was to reply to my writ. As stated below, they replied with a "Waiver of right to respond." Of course, this means far more than I at first thought.

The Supreme Court went on to denied my in forma pauperis (I have no money) application, and required me to file a completely new writ complying with their attorney standards of booklet form etc., costing not only the $300 docket fee for a new writ, but about $1500-2000 for the printing and shipping, and all this to be done by November 19, 2012. Of course this is stalling and unconscionable actions they did NOT have to take. They ignored pro se filing case law and precedent to accept substance above form. They said nothing about the waiver default by the Respondent.

I filed three separate documents with the court on 11-6-12... Motion for reconsideration, Application for more time, and a Rule 55 NOTICE to clerk. The latter could be a game changer, as it states under Federal Rules of civil procedure:

Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment

(a) ENTERING A DEFAULT. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.

In denying to respond and defend against my suit, the IRS, defaulted. However, as the Rule 55 above mentions, and as other sources have elaborated on, their refusal to answer IS an answer. That answer is, "we do not deny anything you are saying," and thereby they agree to it all. This means the court is deprived of subject matter jurisdiction because the parties have agreed and settled the controversy, and "should," by law, give judgment against them on all counts, and allow me remedy. Their acceptance of my writ and docket of it under case # 12-6169, was an acceptance... a contract with them to perform their lawful duty, so in effect, the case WAS accepted to be heard.

It is likely I didn't have to file the last documents, but it is better to do more than less. I will now prepare another documents titled "Motion for ORDER to Intervenor the United States Government Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.," and file it Wednesday.

Updated 9-29-12

I received a response letter from the DOJ/Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, Jr., stating "The government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court." See letter here (Spelled my name wrong...???)


Do you have an up date for us?

robot999's picture

Bump for $50

come on folks, worthwhile wouldn't you say?

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

Five pages of comments?

Does anyone have an update on this?

Hi tuntavern1775

Do you have any updates on this?

"1913 Massacre" - Woodie Guthrie ballad. Ruthless union busting.

[Victrola: "1913 Massacre" ballad by Woodie Guthrie]

Viewer comment - 73 people died: 11 adults and 62 children. In the months before, the mining company called in the national guard to attack union pickets. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co. controlled the police, council, courts and church. The company boss, James MacNaughton, founded a vigilante group called the Citizens Alliance which was responsible for the tragedy at Italian Hall. That company boss was paid $83,000 a yr while the miners received $2-$3 for a 10 hour day.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Any Updates?

Anyone have an update on this Supreme Court issue?

Take a moment to read SamAdamsCW reply below.

Direct vs Indirect.


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

What is it about DIRECT vs indirect

that people need to write a book about. They can't tax individuals - period (unless by contract).

Watch about 31 minutes in


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.


"The Supreme Court said the government’s response is due Oct. 11."

So where's the beef?

I am TIRED of the legal questions....

You will not get "legal" results out of a corrupt system. What the powers that be fail to realize is, once enough people realize the system they have "gamed" is rigged, NOBODY plays and the evil they have summoned will rise up to devour them. The end game is a "blood sacrifice" and the only question is WHOSE blood will it be?

Do you think it is any coincidence that films, TV shows and video involving revolution and mass murder have become the NORM? Forget the lockdown, when it starts the bloodbath will become epidemic and there will be no need for organized revolt because the key players will simply become "targets of opportunity".

Stay tuned...

Well Bob...

reading between the lines of all this "mock" reform I find it at least lending clues to what might really be going on.

Taxes are all about social

Taxes are all about social engineering. So are incentives.

Tell that to Gary.


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

About the Direct vs. Indirect thing ...

Hey guys, I'm all for getting rid of the the income tax. Throw it out because it wasn't ratified, is not interpreted correctly, is downright immoral ... I'm all for it.

BUT ...

There is an issue that gets repeated amongst libertarians all the time that is simply NOT TRUE.

Here's the deal:

(1) The Constitution (pre-16th Amendment) said there are two types of taxes: direct and indirect.

(2) The framers understood that a direct tax was on a person or his property (mere ownership), while an indirect tax was on an activity (such as buying moonshine).

(3) In Pollack vs. Farmers (1895), the SCOTUS struck down the 1894 Income Tax Act because ONE PART of it was a direct tax without apportionment. That ONE PART was where they were taxing dividends and rental income. The SCOTUS said that income DERIVED FROM the ownership of something (corporate stock or rental property) was the same as taxing the ownership, which means it was a direct tax ... BUT, BUT, BUT ... all the REST OF the 1894 Income Tax Act was constitutional because the "other" incomes being taxed were indirect taxes, which were OK. But because one part was unconstitutional, the whole thing was thrown out, which was the right thing to do.

(4) In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific RR (1916), the court said that the 16th Amendment (assuming it was properly ratified, which was not a question in this case) made ANY form of income an indirect tax, not direct tax, even if the income was DERIVED from the ownership of something (which, they said, is why the amendment said "without regard to source"). "Source," contrary to what some people say, is not a PLACE, but rather is an ACTION which has a place. (The Brushaber court did not say that last part, but it is they way "source" is interpreted.)

So ...

I'm all for throwing the whole damn thing out. BUT, it is just factually wrong to say that the SCOTUS's position is that it's a direct tax. I think the SCOTUS got it WRONG ... but that is what they said.

I do not believe for even a MILLISECOND that the current SCOTUS will do a damn thing, unless they make things even worse.

But we should be as accurate with the facts as we can be.

Denise B's picture

I agree with you

that if SCOTUS has finally agreed to take this case after years and years of avoiding it that it is not a good sign, seeing that they just ruled it is Constitutional for the government to force you to engage in commerce, whether or not you want to. The other issue you did not address; however, was the actuall issue of what the definition of the word "income" is, specifically as it is used in the 16th Amendment. The problem is, Congress never defined what the term meant in refernce to the Amendment, so SCOTUS ruled that it has to mean whatever it meant at the time the amendment was passed, which is essential a "corporate profit", which is why you did not see the FEDS even attempt to tax individual's wages until around WWII, and there are several SCOTUS cases that differ themselves on the actual nature of the tax, Brushaber saying it is indirect, but others state it is direct. Givemeliberty.org has done a ton of legal research on this topic and documented all of the numerous legal isses with the income tax as it is currently enforced today on people's wages. Bottom line, though, if they are finally agreeing to hear it now, it is not good news because they've already shown a complete unwillingness at this point to uphold the Constitution.

I understand that sentiment, but I noted below (far below)

not long after this OP was posted that perhaps this will be used in conjunction with the Obamacare decision to expose just how limited both Obamacare and the Income Tax really are.

Roberts didn't really say Congress can make ANYONE and EVERYONE participate in commerce.

He said they can tax people MORE for not doing something. But he didn't expand WHO they can tax or what the basis of the original tax is.

Thus if the "mandate" is merely a surtax upon income, then not everyone is mandated to purchase insurance. Its just that if you owe income taxes, and you don't purchase insurance, you'll pay MORE income tax.

But Roberts said nothing about people who don't owe the income tax in the first place.

The law doesn't make people who otherwise don't owe the income tax, in any way liable for the mandate "tax" and there is no mechanism in the law to enforce the mandate upon them. The only enforcement mechanisms are based on filing income tax returns.

Denise B's picture

I like your optimism

and I agree with the legal argument that you're putting forth, I just have no confidence in SCOTUS at this point to do anything to substantively restrict Congress to that extent...if they were to admit the truth that very few people are actually "liable" to pay the income tax, all heck would break loose and I just have absolutely no confidence that the current SCOTUS has the desire or courage to do such a thing. I really do hope I am wrong; however. :)

I don't consider it confidence on my part but rather

wishful thinking.

It did strike me as odd though how it was breaking down.

So much so that it was the oddity itself of Robert's carefully chosen words that made me think he was using this decision for something else, something bigger.

We shall see...

SCOTUS was right. It is indirect.

What you are leaving out that might be confusing is WHY they said it was indirect.

That is because the income tax as understood in Brushaber is not the income tax you and I know today. Congress and the IRS have changed it over the years. And the Court even said that Congress could NOT do this to boot, but they've done it anyway.

It has to do with "rules of construction." You see, the Court interpreted the 16th amendment as saying that a tax on income is indirect and thus doesn't need to be apportioned. They specifically said this is true because the word "income" in the amendment can't be made to mean whatever Congress wants it to mean. The words in the Constitution are forever fixed in their meaning. (barring an amendment which redefines them) The meaning each word has, is that meaning which was common at the time those particular words were ratified.

So for the original Constitution, the words there can only, and forever, mean what they meant to the People in 1789. The words in the amendments can only, and forever, mean what they meant to the People when each amendment was ratified.

Because of this, the Constitution is not a "living" document in the sense that one can alter the meanings of words, or that a newer common meaning of a word in any way alters the original meaning of the Constitution. No, the meaning is fixed, no matter what modern common usage is.

So back to "income."

The Court specifically said that this word can only mean what it meant to the People when the amendment was ratified (1913) and Congress has no authority to write a law that interprets it differently.

And the Court specifically said that FOREVER (barring another amendment) the word "income" in the 16th, can only mean the same thing it meant in the 1909 CORPORATE TAX ACT!!!

The 1909 Act was an excise on realizing gain or profit deriving from the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity. (it is a privilege because corporate capacity limits your liability to money invested only - this is not a natural condition under the common law, and requires a government granted permission or privilege to do business this way)

Congress cannot make a wage or a salary paid to a worker into income that is taxed upon the worker. The worker is NOT realizing a gain or profit with that wage or salary as the source. But the corporation he works for IS. Thus his wage or salary, which is the measure of his labor, is a source from which the corporation he works for derives revenue, and thus gain or profit. (if they don't incur a loss)

The source is not taxed.

The privilege of realizing a gain or profit from a source is taxed, and then only if this resulted from corporate activity.

If one is realizing a gain or profit from a non-incorporated business activity, then there is no privilege and thus no tax imposed or due.

Your wage or salary are NOT items of income for YOU. They are sources of income for whomever you work for IF you work for a corporation.

Now, this only deals with USC 26 Subtitle A - Income Tax.

Subtitle C - Employment Tax is another matter entirely.

There, Congress is taxing the privilege of public employment. (or private employment working on public contracts)

Congress is NOT and cannot tax occupations of common right.

The problem is that few if any in Congress today, and certainly even fewer in the IRS understand these distinctions.

And so they are enforcing a badly worded law as if it were a direct tax upon any money you receive whatsoever.

The confusion is because they are stupid and can't read.

We need to "educate" them so they'll start enforcing the law correctly. (but we need to educate the rest of the People as well)

Very well laid out as to past Court Decisions on "Income".

I've been trying to follow this present case, but can't find any information on whether SCOTUS has decided to even hear the case.

Have you heard anything?

No. Sorry. I've heard nothing more.

If I do, I'll post it.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, ...

The Star-Spangled Banner
By Francis Scott Key


Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
[We are here.] ...

[Second verse] On the shore dimly seen, thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? [You are here.]

[Third verse] And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more? ...

[Fourth verse] Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation; ...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul


Saved this comment.

Actually Dr.Paul made a stement I believe basically saying

that congress knows that the income tax is bogus. One might assume then that he may have had talks with it's members about it.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yes, I recall this statement.

That's why I think there are a few who know.

It's possible most don't though.

It's also possible they all get "educated" once they get there, but all decide not to "rock the boat."

GREAT JOB!!! You made that easy for anybody to understand!!!

"We need to "educate" them so they'll start enforcing the law correctly. (but we need to educate the rest of the People as well)"

I do not think congress will change until enough people wake-up and they are forced! I think the income tax is more about control then robbing your paycheck. I believe the banksters are the ones behind this whole mess.....and congress is their puppets! Just my 2 cents!!!


Perfectly explained... Well done, sir.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.