Sunday, February 25, 2007

rhawk301 blog supports ed brown



Ed Brown is offering a $1,000,000 compensation (commercial property) to the first person to show him the law requiring him to pay federal income tax.

@fourletters in the research I have done, Congress can tax us on income derived from any source. However, income is defined as gains and profits ONLY. http://www.taxhistory.com/1909.html

Ed is right, there is no law. I am glad someone with balls of steel, and the money to back it is coming forward.


Read more here.

11 Comments:

Blogger Joey Smith said...

In which bank is the $1,000,000 escrowed? Oh, I nearly forgot, there is no $1,000,000 just some interests in a house and building that the IRS is going to end up with anyway.

To the extent that there is "fraud" involved in this case, it is in Ed's and Elaine's illusory challenge.

Put $1,000,000 cash in a bank -- I dare ya!

7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

joey smith said,

I wouldn't know what to do with my trailer if I had that much money. Time to take the NAP, IT'S PAST YOUR BEDTIME. You use such big words like illusory. WOW you must be one of those intellectuals.

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are you rooting for for president Joey?

7:52 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

Internal Revenue Manual
4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006) “Importance of Court Decisions”:


“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 Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.”

The United States Supreme Court gives us some insight how we should study the applications of law:

MCCULLOUGH v. VIRGINIA., 19 S. Ct. 134, 172.U.S.102(U.S. 12/05/1898):
“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”


Therefore, The United States Supreme Court Ruled:


UNITED STATES v. BISHOP, 412 U.S. 346, 361:
“This longstanding interpretation of the purpose of the recurring word "willfully" promotes coherence in the group of tax crimes. In our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law. The Court has said, ‘It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the [412 U.S. 346, 361] exercise of reasonable care.’ Spies, 317 U.S., at 496 . Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this Court. James v. United States, 366 U.S., at 221 -222. Cf. Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 255 (1957). The Court's consistent interpretation of the word "willfully" to require an element of mens rea implements the pervasive intent of Congress to construct penalties that separate the purposeful tax violator from the well-meaning, but easily confused, mass of taxpayers.”

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”.

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.”

There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III § 2, U.S Constitution, arising under” clause).

See FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS AUTHORITY, 535 U.S (2002):

The following elements are essential:

1. When challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in the record.
2. Facts of the case must be established in record.
3. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition, or direct oral examination).
4. The LAW of the case must affirmatively pear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MENK, 260 F.Supp. 784, 787 and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. COMMUNITY TV INC., 327 F.2d 79 (10th Circuit 1964)
5. The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts.

6. The trial court, rather administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes finding of fact and conclusions of law.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/crim_jury_insts/html/chap1_8.htm

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.

7:59 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

In November 2004, the Justice Department filed a civil injunction complaint against William Benson, asking the court to bar Mr. Benson from selling a fraudulent tax scheme and from unlawfully interfering with the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Benson’s tax scheme relies on the frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04752.htm; see also 2004 TNT 223-20 (Nov. 16, 2004).

The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, which discusses this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.

Relevant Case Law:

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) – the court stated, “We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.” The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a “patently frivolous” position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) – stating that “the Secretary of State’s certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,” the court upheld Stahl’s conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) – the court affirmed Foster’s conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

Socia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994) – the court held that defendant’s appeals which challenged Sixteenth Amendment income tax legislation were frivolous and warranted sanctions.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) – the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as “totally without merit” and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. “Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it,” the court observed.

Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006). – the court imposed sanctions totaling $25,000 against the taxpayer for advancing arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that have been universally rejected by the courts, including arguments regarding the Sixteenth Amendment. In affirming the Tax Court’s holding, the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s request for further sanctions of $6,000 against the taxpayer for maintaining frivolous arguments on appeal, and the Fifth Circuit imposed an additional $6,000 sanctions on its own, for total additional sanctions of $12,000.

8:12 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

In light of all of the information showing that Joey and Brian are ignoring the substance of due process to be provided to the Browns as required by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would appear that any alleged lawlessness of the Browns has not been actually proved.

Void Judgments, fall under FRCP Rule 60(b). That legal doctrine reaches courts that lacked jurisdiction, and courts fail to acheive jurisdiction when they fail to conform the process to due process standards.

The authority of the jury is plainly one of those standards as a jury is not a jury when the courts take a public stand of undermining and tampering with the jury's authority.

8:27 PM  
Blogger Jay said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:14 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

Joey's problem is that he can't stay on point.

Joey Smith said...
The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states,

Where in all this was there any argument about the 16th Amendment NOT being ratified?

Internal Revenue Manual
4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006) “Importance of Court Decisions”:

“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 Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.”

The United States Supreme Court gives us some insight how we should study the applications of law:

MCCULLOUGH v. VIRGINIA., 19 S. Ct. 134, 172.U.S.102(U.S. 12/05/1898):
“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”

In a letter to Sen Carl Levin of Michigan asking him if: “The 16th Amendment repealed or otherwise pre-empted the direct tax limitation imposed under Article 1 Sec 9.”

He answered today, and made it clear that:

“The rule of apportionment with respect to direct taxes still exists within the Constitution.

The Constitution still requires that a direct tax on property must be apportioned among the states;”

Well, with this in mind I took real close notice of his words:

“a direct tax on property must be apportioned among the states.”

Not only is Carl Levin a United States Senator, but also a card carring member of the BAR.

Now lets look at these cases again and what did the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment really authorized and didn't authroize.

Just because joey doesn't like what the Supreme Court Ruled doesn't mean that joey doesn't have to abide by the RULE OF LAW as his handbook states.

The United States Supreme Court gives us some insight how we should study the applications of law:

MCCULLOUGH v. VIRGINIA., 19 S. Ct. 134, 172.U.S.102(U.S. 12/05/1898):
“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”


Therefore, The United States Supreme Court Ruled:


UNITED STATES v. BISHOP, 412 U.S. 346, 361:
“This longstanding interpretation of the purpose of the recurring word "willfully" promotes coherence in the group of tax crimes. In our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law. The Court has said, ‘It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the [412 U.S. 346, 361] exercise of reasonable care.’ Spies, 317 U.S., at 496 . Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this Court. James v. United States, 366 U.S., at 221 -222. Cf. Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 255 (1957). The Court's consistent interpretation of the word "willfully" to require an element of mens rea implements the pervasive intent of Congress to construct penalties that separate the purposeful tax violator from the well-meaning, but easily confused, mass of taxpayers.”

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”.

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.”

There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III § 2, U.S Constitution, arising under” clause).

See FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS AUTHORITY, 535 U.S (2002):

The following elements are essential:

1. When challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in the record.
2. Facts of the case must be established in record.
3. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition, or direct oral examination).
4. The LAW of the case must affirmatively pear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MENK, 260 F.Supp. 784, 787 and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. COMMUNITY TV INC., 327 F.2d 79 (10th Circuit 1964)
5. The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts.

6. The trial court, rather administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes finding of fact and conclusions of law.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/crim_jury_insts/html/chap1_8.htm

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.

9:54 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Joey's rooting for Ed Brown for President, and Dreaming of a Million Dollar Tax Return!

10:18 PM  
Blogger Ryan Mann said...

Joey will vote for the candidate that most matches the views of the communist party. It seems that America's modern laws and case law is enline with communism.
no joke, one of the planks of the communist manifesto says "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." The supreme court has recently ruled that local governments can take people's homes for any purpose. Ooh, the second plank is just for Joey. It says "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Joey will probably like this one too. "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Ed and Elaine Brown are rebeling against the status quo and I think I remember Joey saying he would want to bid on their property after it's taken by the government.

12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joey - For someone who hates the browns, the fair tax movement, this blog, the people posting etc, etc, you sure do spend a lot of time here.

I wonder why that is?

Joey - There's a hell of a lot more money available for this challenge besides Ed Browns property. How come you always leave that little bit of info out of your posts?

We the people foundation has had 50k available for years now. There's also many other private individuals and organizations who have put up funds for the challenge. Of course you always neglect to mention that.

Your true colors show blindingly through.

As for your constant crap about the 16th amendment... it does not matter if the 16th was ratified or not (not) because its been clearly ruled already that the 16th amendment gives the government NO new taxing powers. What part of NO NEW TAXING POWERS don't you understand?

Here's another question for you Joey:

Why do you hang out on this blog all day long every day?

And ----

Why are you afraid to do a radio interview? And yes you are AFRAID to go on the air with your so called facts.

You know what you are Joey?

You are a pathetic excuse for an American!

1:37 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER