SOURCE: The Great IRS Hoax book, Section 6.2.1.

---

As we have stated repeatedly throughout this book, there is a judicial conspiracy to protect the income tax (see sections 6.6 and 1.3.6 and 1.8). The basic problem is that the federal district and circuit courts are acting as a protection racket for the IRS while the Supreme Court has been looking the other way by denying appeals to correct such abuses. How did we arrive at the point where the Supreme Court even had the discretion to deny such appeals? That is a scandal all by itself, as you will find out.

In section 3.1.11.1 we revealed the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment by showing you the Presidential Speech that introduced the Sixteenth Amendment for the first time, given by William H. Taft before Congress in 1909. That speech showed clearly that then President Taft understood that federal income taxes were excise taxes that could not be instituted against other than federal corporations. He introduced the Sixteenth Amendmentto Congress in 1909 as a way to circumvent this restriction and broaden the application of federal income taxes to authorize a supposed direct income tax on private persons. Subsequent to the introduction of the Sixteenth Amendment for state ratification in 1909, Secretary of State Philander Knoxcommitted fraud in 1913 by claiming that the Sixteenth Amendment had been properly ratified by ¾ of the states. Knox was Taft’s hand-picked Secretary of State.

During his presidency, Taft made six appointments to the Supreme Court -- more than any other one-term President. Many think that when Taft named Edward White Chief Justice rather than the other obvious choice, Charles Evans Hughes, there was a political agenda to pave a way for his own later appointment as Chief Justice. Taft appointed White because White was twelve years older than Hughes. Naming White gave Taft a better shot at being Chief Justice one day himself -- in spite of Thomas Jefferson's famous complaint that "few [Justices] die and none resign.". You can read more about Taft’s history from the speech given by Chief Justice Rehnquist on April 13, 2002, and which is posted on the Supreme Court website at:

We know by reading excerpts from Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)in section 3.16.11, that the Supreme Court, subsequent to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, disagreed with President Taft about the affect of the Sixteenth Amendment by saying that it conferred “no new power of taxation” upon Congress. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916, three years after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment:

"..by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendmentconferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congressfrom 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. "

President Taft, who would later leave office in 1913 to be appointed by President Harding to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921, must have known this was going to happen when he introduced the Sixteenth Amendmentin 1909. So how did he skirt this declaration by the Supreme Court that nullified the 16^th Amendment to allow the fraud of federal income taxes to perpetuate anyway? The answer is quite interesting.

As Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, President Taft sponsored a bill called the Certiorari Act of 1925. In the year that Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921, the docket of the Supreme Court was reportedly 5 years behind, according to Chief Justice Rehnquist, so when Taft became Chief Justice, he complained to Congress and the President that the Supreme Court was hopelessly backed up in hearing appeals from lower courts and that the court needed the discretion to be able to deny appeals from lower courts. What sort of appeals might those be? How about federal income tax trials to begin with! Here is the way Chief Justice Rehnquist described this situation:

When he was appointed Chief Justice in 1921, the Court had fallen nearly five years behind in its docket. He resolved this caseload congestion in the Court by convincing Congress to pass the Judiciary Act of 1925 -- also known as the Certiorari Act -- which gave the Court discretion as to which cases to hear. Some members of Congress were doubtful -- why shouldn't every litigant have a right to get a decision on his case from the Supreme Court? Taft responded that in each case, there had already been one trial and one appeal. "Two courts are enough for justice," he said. To obtain still a third hearing in the Supreme Court, there should be some question involved more important than just who wins this lawsuit.

He must have figured that if the appeals courts below the Supreme Court would uphold the income tax and if the Supreme Court could deny appeals, then in spite of the Supreme Court precedents established earlier which nullified the Sixteenth Amendment, we could have a schizophrenic and split personality federal judicial system that on the one hand, would declare at the Supreme Court level that direct income taxes were unconstitutional, but at courts below the Supreme Court would declare them constitutional. As long as the Supreme Court under the Certiorari Act of 1925 could deny appeals, it wouldn’t have to correct the abuses of the lower courts and the split personalities could continue. This sin of omission by the Supreme court which were authorized by an unconstitutional Ceriorari Act would then serve to perpetuate the income tax fraud. This would open the doors for the U.S. Congress to perpetuate the myth of income tax liability by lying to their constituents and telling them that they “must pay federal income taxes because the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes it”. This, in a nutshell, is exactly the legacy and the heritage that we live with to this day, and we have President Taft in large part, to thank for it. The obscenely dishonest people in Congress who know the truth and yet continue to perpetuate this fraud are simply maintaining the system that Taft setup through his skullduggery.

Former President Taft served only four years as Chief Justice after the passage of the Certiorari Act of 1925, resigning from office in February 1930 because of illness and dying a month later. He must have figured he had accomplished the job he set out to do. E.B. White, his predecessor Chief Justice, served almost 10 years and Justice Fuller before him served 21 years.

To summarize the big picture, Chief Justice Taft must have known that the federal income tax fraud could not continue if the Supreme Court lacked the discretion to deny appeals, or Writs of Certiorari as they are called, from lower courts. If the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or BIR (now called the IRS) kept trying at the time to extort money from people and the Supreme Court consistently was saying that the Sixteenth Amendmentdidn’t authorize them to do this, then people could eventually appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court and stop the unlawful assessment and collection, which would destroy federal revenues and keep the BIR in check. Allow the Supreme Court to deny appeals, however, and the situation would be very different. With his Certiorari Act passed by Congress in 1925 in place, President William Howard Taft had all the pieces in place needed to perpetuate and enlarge the federal income tax fraud:

1. A brand new Supreme Court building. Previously, the Supreme Court had been meeting in other government buildings and justices were operating out of their homes up until that time.
2. A Supreme Court stacked with six of his own hand-picked justices during his term as President from 1909-1913.
3. The Sixteenth Amendmentthat Taft himself had introduced in 1909.
4. A fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendmentby Philander Knox in 1913. Philander Knox was his own hand-picked Secretary of State.
5. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, scandalously passed by just four members of Congress during a Christmas recess immediately after the Sixteenth Amendmentwas ratified and during Taft’s administration.
6. The Certiorari Act of 1925that authorized the Supreme Court to deny justice to people who had been defrauded of federal income taxes they didn’t owe by the then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
7. Control of the Supreme Court for five years following the passage of the Certiorari Act, so he could get in place several circuit court rulings favorable to the income tax that the Supreme Court would deny writs to. Taft served as Chief Justice from 1921 to 1929 until his death in 1930.
8. At the end of Taft’s term as Chief Justice, our country plunged into the Great Depression, which most knowledgeable people say was caused by a deliberate and systematic contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve in order to engineer the socialist reforms that FDR would later propose in the form of Socialist Security. Our purely capitalist economic system had to be made to look like it was failing by the banksters before most rugged individualist Americans would willingly accept anything as radical as Socialist Security or a government handout.

The fundamental defect in the Certiorari Act was the fact that the Supreme Court could:

1. Deny appeals without explaining why (and evade accountability for its decision). If the people are the sovereigns and the government is their servant, what gives the servant the right to tell the sovereign what to do with its appeal?
2. Deny appeals even though decisions of lower courts clearly conflicted with its precedents. This amounts to condoning government wrongs.
3. Deny appeals of parties whose constitutional rights were claimed to be injured. The ability to deny justice to parties whose constitutional rights had been violated clearly violates the oath that the justices take to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

If the above three defects in the unconstitutional Certiorari Act of 1925 were remedied, we wouldn’t have the split personality court system we have today and the fraud of the income tax, because they would be impossible to maintain with an accountable Supreme Court that was obligated to:

1. Correct rulings below it that violated or contradicted its precedents.
2. Correct rulings which violated constitutional rights without exception.
3. Explain why it would not hear the case or defend the constitutional rights of the injured party (be accountable).

Now do you see how the pieces of the puzzle were cleverly and invisibly weaved together by conspiracies involving all three branches of the federal government over several years to create the totally unjust and extortionary slavery tax system we have now? Now do you understand why Thomas Jefferson said:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery".
-Thomas Jefferson

Do you also now understand why Franklin Delano Roosevelt said?:

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt