Hear Ye, Hear Ye!! We The People Want To Interview Anyone Who's Against Ed & Elaine Brown
It's now time for all men and women to come to the aid of their country, the republic of the United States of America!!
To begin and advance this effort, We The People of America - the true defenders of the Constitutional Republic - do hereby announce that we are establishing on a regular daily basis an opportunity for individuals who are AGAINST Ed and Elaine Brown to call in and voice their opinion openly in public on this blog.
We need volunteers who can identify anyone who is against Ed & Elaine Brown. All you need to do is provide us with a name, email address and telephone number and we will be sure to have volunteers spend time to trace and track these individuals down. Once a connection is made we will offer them the opportunity to be interviewed on this blog by one of our volunteer coordinators.
We believe Doug Kenline's idea of manning a 24 X 7 conference call that can be connected into this blogging network is FANATASTIC!! But We The People need your help!
The task is very simple:
PLEASE FIND ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST ED AND ELAINE BROWN AND GET THEM TO COMMIT TO BE INTERVIEWED ON THIS BLOG!!
It's that simple!!
Invite anyone and everyone you know!! Doctors, lawyers, the local sherriff, police, firemen, mechanics, nurses, moms, dads, even children!
We need your help! Let's be sure to invite all these individuals who are against Ed & Elaine Brown that post as "anonymous" on this blog and elsewhere. Let's work together to find out "WHO IS AGAINST ED AND ELAINE BROWN??!!" This is a great challenge! Let's all work together and be sure that the voice of these individuals is broadcasted worldwide for everyone to understand them so that mankind can benefit from the truth they have to offer others.
To expedite this process you can send your leads - please include names and telephone numbers - to this email address:
iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com
Thanks for your help and support!!
Editor's Note: Let this be a great challenge! The race is on!! For we are going to keep interviewing sharing the voice of individuals who support Ed & Elaine Brown on a daily basis on this blog. If you support Ed and Elaine Brown and want to share your email address and number so we can interview you on this blog please send your message to:
iamforedandelainebrown@gmail.com
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
11:39 AM
28 Comments:
Let's see, in addition to all the mainstream news writers who have ridiculed Ed Brown, you could probably get Pulitzer prize-winner David Cay Johnston, tax attorney Dan Evans who writes the tax protestor FAQ, tax attorney Bob Sommers of taxprophet.com, Jay Adkinson of quatloos.com, JJ McNabb of deathandtaxes.com, and a bunch of others. No shortage of highly successful people out there who think that tax protestors are total idiots.
The problem isn't what the Supreme Court has ruled, the problem is what the IRS agents, DOJ and lower Courts ignore that the Supreme Court has ruled.
So what is it that you so dislike about Ed and Elaine Brown the most? That they threaten your $60,000 - $80,000 per year paycheck?
Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.72.9.8 (5-14-99)
1. “Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain Court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court Decisions have the same weight as the code.”
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); 240 U.S. 1:
“…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…”
“…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…”
“…on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”
This statement is quoted in IRS documents: “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.” This is the statement that IRS literature uses to fraudulently deceive and coerce citizens into paying taxes not due. They fail to print the complete statement by the U.S. Supreme Court that plainly states that this is indeed an “erroneous assumption” and further evidence of fraudulent concealment of truth.
STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”
“…it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..”
“…it was settled in Stratton’s Independence… that such tax is not a tax upon property… but a true excise levied on the result of the business..”
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have the power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”
PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 173 (1918)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”
DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918)
“An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (Sixteenth Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations.”
EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 205, 206 (1920)
“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. As respectfully held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects.”
EVANS v. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, 259 (1920)
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say; ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended, that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before.”
Just as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court Decisions, the IRS chooses to look the other way. What the Supreme Court established in EVANS v. GORE was that not only did the 16th amendment NOT confer any new taxing powers to Congress to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definition of income as defined by the Supreme Court in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO.
In FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 144, 165 (1911), this is also stated:
“A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 Corporation tax Act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit, AND HAVE CAPITAL STOCK represented by shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges…
It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable. Applying that doctrine to this case, the measure of taxation being the income of the corporation from all sources, as that is but the measure of a privilege tax within the lawful authority of Congress to impose, it is no valid objection that this measure includes, in part, at least, property which, as such, could not be directly taxed. See, in this connection, Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 142 U.S. 217 , 35 L. ed. 994, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 807, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121, 163, as interpreted in Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 226 , 52 S. L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638.”
MERCHANT’S LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 519 (1921)
“There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word income must be given the same meaning as in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”
HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."
BUTCHER’S UNION v. CRESENT CITY CO., 111 US 746, 757 (1884):
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.”
Some people who post Anonymous are not against Ed or Elaine...they may just want to remain covert warriors!
The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the convictions of tax protestors at any time, but has not done so. Plus, the most direct statement regarding tax protestors' various goofy arguments comes from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cheek case where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that tax protestor argument are "surely frivolous".
Anonymous:
Please be sure to share the names and telephone numbers of all these folks who are against Ed and Elaine Brown by sending an email to this address:
iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com
And we would like to urge you, if you really feel confident, to share your name and number so we can be sure to get in touch with you!
Thanks for helping out in this great cause!
Anonymous:
Please be sure to share your leads using this email address:
iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com
Be sure to leave a telephone number where we can contact all these folks!!
Thank you so much for stepping up to help in this great cause!!
You cite the Supreme Court cases as if they support your proposition. Have you actually RTFC(s). The holdings do not support your contentions. They say that the US had the right before the 16th to tax. In at least one case, you are not even citing the majoirty opinion.
Furthermore, if the SC says that income taxes are unconstitutional, why are they not held to be so by the courts? I'm sure all the government got together to orchestrate some big conspiracy, how else could this occur unless...hmm unless TAXES ARE HELD CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE COURTS. You can disagree all you want but to pull words out of the cases that only support your contention when out of context to mislead others is just wrong.
So what part of these Supreme Court decisions don't you comprehend?
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”
HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."
Most of us know that only employees can be levied on. It is exactly these definitions that produced our questions to government and the class action against the gov.
What parts of "surely frivolous" or "convictions affirmed" or "cert. denied" don't you understand?
You quote out-of-context portions of Supreme Court opinions without focusing on the true reasoning or most importantly the result of those cases: No tax protestor has EVER avoided liability for taxes and the Supreme Court has never reversed the conviction of any tax protestor based on tax protestor arguments.
That is the cold hard truth. You can ask that of Lynne Meredith or any number of tax protestors sitting in jail RIGHT NOW who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and got the thumbs down. Of course, you'll have to visit them on Saturday mornings only.
PATTERN CRIMINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
_______________
Chapter 1.00
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Committee Commentary 1.02
2005 Edition
The Committee made no change in the instruction.
A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v. Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).
1991 Edition
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962, 2002.SCT.0000098 , 70 USLW 4464, 2002 A.M.C. 1372
[51]
In another case asking whether an immunity present in the judicial context also applied to administrative adjudications, this Court considered whether administrative law judges share the same absolute immunity from suit as do Article III judges. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 (1978). Examining in that case the duties performed by an ALJ, this Court observed:
[52]
"There can be little doubt that the role of the modern federal hearing examiner or administrative law judge ... is `functionally comparable' to that of a judge. His powers are often, if not generally, comparable to those of a trial judge: He may issue subpoenas, rule on proffers of evidence, regulate the course of the hearing, and make or recommend decisions. More importantly, the process of agency adjudication is currently structured so as to assure that the hearing examiner exercises his independent judgment on the evidence before him, free from pressures by the parties or other officials within the agency." Id., at 513 (citation omitted).
[53]
Beyond the similarities between the role of an ALJ and that of a trial judge, this Court also noted the numerous common features shared by administrative adjudications and judicial proceedings:
[54]
"[F]ederal administrative law requires that agency adjudication contain many of the same safeguards as are available in the judicial process. The proceedings are adversary in nature. They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence. A party is entitled to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, and the transcript of testimony and exhibits together with the pleadings constitutes the exclusive record for decision. The parties are entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record." Ibid. (citations omitted).
[55]
This Court therefore concluded in Butz that administrative law judges were "entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for their judicial acts." Id., at 514.
[56]
Turning to FMC adjudications specifically, neither the Commission nor the United States disputes the Court of Appeals' characterization below that such a proceeding "walks, talks, and squawks very much like a lawsuit." 243 F. 3d, at 174. Nor do they deny that the similarities identified in Butz between administrative adjudications and trial court proceedings are present here. See 46 CFR §502.142 (2001).
[57]
A review of the FMC's Rules of Practice and Procedure confirms that FMC administrative proceedings bear a remarkably strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal courts. For example, the FMC's Rules governing pleadings are quite similar to those found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A case is commenced by the filing of a complaint. See 46 CFR §502.61 (2001); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3. The defendant then must file an answer, generally within 20 days of the date of service of the complaint, see §502.64(a); Rule 12(a)(1), and may also file a motion to dismiss, see §502.227(b)(1); Rule 12(b). A defendant is also allowed to file counterclaims against the plaintiff. See §502.64(d); Rule 13. If a defendant fails to respond to a complaint, default judgment may be entered on behalf of the plaintiff. See §502.64(b); Rule 55. Intervention is also allowed. See §502.72; Rule 24.
[58]
Likewise, discovery in FMC adjudications largely mirrors discovery in federal civil litigation. See 46 U. S. C. App. §1711(a)(1) (1994 ed.) (instructing that in FMC adjudicatory proceedings "discovery procedures ... to the extent practicable, shall be in conformity with the rules applicable in civil proceedings in the district courts of the United States"). In both types of proceedings, parties may conduct depositions, see, e.g., 46 CFR §502.202 (2001); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 28, which are governed by similar requirements. Compare §§502.202, 502.203, and 502.204, with Rules 28, 29, 30, and 31. Parties may also discover evidence by: (1) serving written interrogatories, see §502.205; Rule 33; (2) requesting that another party either produce documents, see §502.206(a)(1); Rule 34(a)(1), or allow entry on that party's property for the purpose of inspecting the property or designated objects thereon, §502.206(a)(2); Rule 34(a)(2); and (3) submitting requests for admissions, §502.207; Rule 36. And a party failing to obey discovery orders in either type of proceeding is subject to a variety of sanctions, including the entry of default judgment. See §502.210(a); Rule 37(b)(2).
[59]
Not only are discovery procedures virtually indistinguishable, but the role of the ALJ, the impartial officer *fn9 designated to hear a case, see §502.147, is similar to that of an Article III judge. An ALJ has the authority to "arrange and give notice of hearing." Ibid. At that hearing, he may
[60]
"prescribe the order in which evidence shall be presented; dispose of procedural requests or similar matters; hear and rule upon motions; administer oaths and affirmations; examine witnesses; direct witnesses to testify or produce evidence available to them which will aid in the determination of any question of fact in issue; rule upon offers of proof ... and dispose of any other matter that normally and properly arises in the course of proceedings." Ibid.
[61]
The ALJ also fixes "the time and manner of filing briefs," §502.221(a), which contain findings of fact as well as legal argument, see §502.221(d)(1). After the submission of these briefs, the ALJ issues a decision that includes "a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues presented on the record, and the appropriate rule, order, section, relief, or denial thereof." §502.223. Such relief may include an order directing the payment of reparations to an aggrieved party. See 46 U. S. C. App. §1710(g) (1994 ed., Supp. V); 46 CFR §502.251 (2001). The ALJ's ruling subsequently becomes the final decision of the FMC unless a party, by filing exceptions, appeals to the Commission or the Commission decides to review the ALJ's decision "on its own initiative." §502.227(a)(3). In cases where a complainant obtains reparations, an ALJ may also require the losing party to pay the prevailing party's attorney's fees. See 46 U. S. C. App. §1710(g); 46 CFR §502.254 (2001).
[62]
In short, the similarities between FMC proceedings and civil litigation are overwhelming. In fact, to the extent that situations arise in the course of FMC adjudications "which are not covered by a specific Commission rule," the FMC's own Rules of Practice and Procedure specifically provide that "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be followed to the extent that they are consistent with sound administrative practice."*fn10 §502.12.
Question, is the We The People foundation anti-Ed Brown, OR are they merely giving a fair and balanced platform so that all people have a voice in this debate?
"Why don't you post the pertinent part of Cheek in its proper context? Could it be because it doesn't say what you claim it says?"
I'm sure that wasn't his/her intent. Trying to take your monopoly on out-of-context quoting of judicial opinions is a job far too great for just one anonymous poster.
ok you cite:
HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
What do you think this says? It certainly doesn't mean what you imply. Do you even know what a treasury regulation is? Guess what, the court is stating common knowledge...interpretive treasury regulations are NOT LAW. It is only the treasury's position on how the code it refers to should be applied.
Now, the statement is out of context anyway. It really means nothing. Let's look at the NEXT SENTENCE in the opinion?
"But Congress, in defining gross income in the various revenue acts, manifested its intention to use to its fullest extent the power granted it by the Sixteenth Amendment....The meaning of the word ‘income‘ in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the acts of Congress pursuant to the Amendment is that given it in common speech and every day usage.".
I would ask you what part of the Supreme Court cases YOU don't comprehend, but I already know the answer-
So why not argue your position in front of a jury? Lets let the jury decide as it should be done and not the corrupt judges.
PATTERN CRIMINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
_______________
Chapter 1.00
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Committee Commentary 1.02
2005 Edition
The Committee made no change in the instruction.
A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v. Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).
1991 Edition
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
I'd like to report Douglas Kenline, Fred Smart, Bob Schulz, and John Kotmair as being anti-Ed Brown.
V said...
So why not argue your position in front of a jury? Lets let the jury decide as it should be done and not the corrupt judges.
What the heck are you talking about? Who has been denied the right to a jury trial. If you understand whatever it is you quoted, the jury decides the facts and applies it to the LAW given to it by THE COURT. (in its instructions)
Just crying a corrupt judge means nothing. Apparantly you believe every judge is corrupt, separation of powers is dead, and you are a slave. Move to Canada, I hear its nice there this time of year.
The Brown's had the opportunity to argue their case in front of a jury and LOST. They couldn't present evidence about the constitutionality of tax laws to the jury because the JUDGE decides questions of LAW, the JURY questions of FACT. Why? Well it has always worked that way and because jurors are not lawyers. If the law wasn't given correctly to the jury it will be overturned on appeal.
"Well it has always worked that way and because jurors are not lawyers."
Don't forget that Eddie and his hottie wife Elaine aren't lawyers either. That's maybe why they lost. Oh, and also the bullshit argument. That too.
Shame, Shame. Such language. Always when you can't define what "IS is" you resort to nasty language.
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
Well, Tinker Bell, if 861 is right then why didn't YOU argue it in defense of the DOJ's injunction against you and take the argument up to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Oh, because 861 is a big joke and everybody knows it is a big joke, including the U.S. Supreme Court, that's why.
Instead, you rolled over for the DOJ like a wet dog begging for a treat and started selling used cars instead.
"Anonymous" Enemy Of We The People:
Please reveal who you are. Seize the power. Here's the email address:
iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com
Come into the light.
You can do it!!
"Enemy Of We The People"
Oh I wouldn't say we're against the people, just ignorant idiots. Don't you have some bugs to be spraying or some other intellectually stimulating occupation to tend to?
Your afternoon dump break is probably over soon...better clock back in before the boss finds 'ya!
You guys do know that you can turn off the anonymous commenting, right? I realize it would take 5 of you to figure it out and at least 20 test posts to make sure you got it right, but if you really dislike the people lurking in the shadows, it might be worth investigating.
Anonymous said:
The Brown's had the opportunity to argue their case in front of a jury and LOST. They couldn't present evidence about the constitutionality of tax laws to the jury because the JUDGE decides questions of LAW, the JURY questions of FACT. Why? Well it has always worked that way and because jurors are not lawyers.
Basically, "Anonymous" is saying that jurors don't have the right to decide whether a law is right or wrong because they are not part of the legal cult. Basically, jurors should be robots.
I have to ask myself, If I didn't agree with a blog, would I waste hours of my own time just to harass them?
Ans...Only if I was well paid for the job.....
"G"-man, take a look at the Pollock v. Farmers rehearing:
'The stress of the argument is thrown, however, on the assertion that an income tax is not a property tax at all; that it is not a real-estate tax, or a crop tax, or a bond tax; that it is an assessment upon the taxpayer on account of his money-spending power, as shown by his revenue for the year preceding the assessment; that rents received, crops harvested, interest collected, have lost all connection with their origin, and, although once not taxable, have become transmuted, in their new form, into taxable subject-matter,-in other words, that income is taxable, irrespective of the source from whence it is derived.'
Sound famillar "G"-man?
'Where did Mr. Hamilton stand?
In the thirtieth number of the Federalist, : 'The taxes, intended to be comprised under the general denomination of internal taxes may be subdivided into those of the direct and those of the indirect kind. ... As to the latter, by which must be understood duties and excises on articles of consumption, one is at a loss to conceive what can be the nature of the difficulties apprehended.'
'An 'excise' duty is an inland impost, levied upon articles of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to deal in certain commodities.'...In the constitution, the words 'duties, imposts, and excises' are put in antithesis to direct taxes...And Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (section 952), expresses the view that it is not unreasonable to presume that the word 'duties' was used as equivalent to 'customs' or 'imposts' by the framers of the constitution, since in other clauses it was provided that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state,' and that 'no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws'
'We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act...Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would, if any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated, except in connection with the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act, which became a law, without the signature of the president, on August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void.'
You "G" people are really creative when it comes to definitions;
"G" = Gestapo
man = agent
Basically, "Anonymous" is saying that jurors don't have the right to decide whether a law is right or wrong because they are not part of the legal cult.
Umm, no. What I am saying is that it is not the job of the jury to decide whether a law is right or wrong. And just because it may be said that they can disregard the law, doesn't mean it's their job. It does not follow that they can hear arguments on the law just because they have the right to disregard the law as the judge gives it. disclaimer: i'm not really sure that the jury has this right but assume it is correct for this arg.
You seek to track down people who disagree? Does this not reek of intimidation? You want to find out their phone number and then, from that, their address? I smell both a rat and a hypocrite. Imagine Mr. Brown's chagrin if the courts called him to "interview." This reeks on intimidation and should be discontinued, even if the intentions are good.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home