Trial Logs
Bloomberg Coalition Mayor Held In Contempt By Federal Judge In Gun Case
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagan doesn't want to return the property police stole from citizens. He is disobeying court orders to return the firearms they took from citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
NEWS RELEASE
BELLEVUE, WA – Earlier this week, a federal judge in New Orleans granted a motion that Mayor C. Ray Nagin be held in contempt for failing to abide by court orders to provide information on hundreds of seized firearms in city custody, and begin returning those guns to their rightful owners.
Lots of news at TrialLogs.com.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
12:33 AM
20 Comments:
My browser keeps locking up is anyone else having a problem?
http://www.thesecret.tv/home.html
I watched the 20 min trailer and I get the idea it's some kind of self mind control pitch that will make you god of yourself
Lafayette judge steps down
http://www.dailycamera.com
/news/2007/feb/13
/lafayette-judge-steps-down/
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.”
Per RYDER v. UNITED STATES, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 117, I am required to initiate a direct challenge to authority of anyone representing himself or herself as a government officer or agent prior to the finality of any proceeding in order to avoid implications of de facto officer doctrine. When challenged, those posing as government officers and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for any loss, injury, or damages.
To claim ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disobey the law as written. It is the responsibility of every person to know what the law says and to stay within the limitations of said law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The courts have upheld this time and time again as these cases will show.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 113 F2d 284 (5th Circuit 1940)
“Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principle, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority.”
To:Anonymous said...
Internal Revenue Manual...
this all refers to "TAXPAYER(S)"; what happens to a "non taxpayer"? This is Ctc basis.
SITTLER v. BOARD OF CONTROL OF MICHIGAN COLLEGE OF MINING AND TECHNOLIGY, 333 Mich 681, 686; 53 NW2d 681, 683 (1952)
“The extent of the authority of the people’s public agents is measured by the statute from which they derive their authority, not by their own acts and assumption of authority.”
TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 275 U.S. 312, 332 (1921)
“Thus the guarantee was intended to secure equality of protection not only for all but against all similarly situated. Indeed, protection is not protection unless it does so. Immunity granted to a class however limited, having the affect to deprive another class however limited of a personal or property right, is just as clearly a denial of equal protection of the laws to the latter class as if the immunity were in favor of, or the deprivation of right permitted worked against, a larger class.”
It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for everyone’s right to life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law. ‘All men are equal before the law,’ ‘This is a government of laws and not of men,’ ‘No man is above the law,’ are all maxims showing the spirit in which Legislatures, Executives, and courts, are expected to make, execute and apply laws.”
In FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE v. MERRILL, 332 U.S 380, The Supreme Court ruled:
“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having to accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
And again in FROST & FROST TRUCKING CO. v. RAILROAD COMM’N OF CALIFORNIA, 271 U.S. 583 the court ruled:
“It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.”
HARMEN v. FORESSENIUS, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965) the Supreme Court Ruled:
“…constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Pp. 542-544.”
This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and it’s agents and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS’s own manual stating:
“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.”
Because the IRS is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and because “26 C.F.R. Sec. 601.702(ii) Effect of failure to publish” makes it clear that any matter which imposes an obligation and is not so published will not adversely change or affect a person’s rights.”(Exhibit 1) Reviewing the Administrative Procedures Act, the IRS does not publish all of their required, hence mandatory, regulations in accordance to the Act. For instance, codification of Part 600, except 600.1(b) has been discontinued. This was published in the federal registry in October, 1948 and reads:
Federal Register, 13 Fed. Reg. 7710:
1. The headnote of Subchapter F. is amended to read “Records and Procedure”
2. Codification of Part 600, except §600.1(b), is discontinued. Future amendments to the statement of organization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will appear in the Notices section of the FEDERAL REGISTRY.
In the Internal Revenue Manual you will find that IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to execute Form 1040 (individual), 1041 (trust) and 1120 (corporation/business) substitute returns under provisions of 26 U.S.C. §6020(b). It follows that if IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to unilaterally execute these returns, Form 1040, 1041, and 1120 returns are not mandatory. Below are listed the forms that 6020(b) give authority for:
5.1.11.6.10 (05-27-1999) IRC 6020(b) Authority
1. The following returns may be prepared, signed and assessed under the authority of IRC 6020(b):
1. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
2. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
3. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
4. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
5. Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return
6. Form CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
7. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income.
2. Pursuant to IRM 1.2.2.97, Delegations of Authority, Order Number 182 (rev. 7), dated 5/5/1997, revenue officers GS-09 and above, and Collection Support Function managers GS-09 and above, have the authority to prepare and execute returns under IRC 6020(b).
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the convictions of literally hundreds of tax protestors to stand.
No credible legal or constitutional scholar thinks that tax protestor theories are any more than a joke.
No legitimate group, such as the ACLU (which will take about any old case), will get behind tax protestor arguments.
Tax protestors are simply WRONG, in addition to the obvious fact that they all Hate America and blame America for the fact that they are losers.
'Nuff said!
Federal Register, 13 Fed. Reg. 7710:
1. The headnote of Subchapter F. is amended to read “Records and Procedure”
2. Codification of Part 600, except §600.1(b), is discontinued. Future amendments to the statement of organization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will appear in the Notices section of the FEDERAL REGISTRY.
In the Internal Revenue Manual you will find that IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to execute Form 1040 (individual), 1041 (trust) and 1120 (corporation/business) substitute returns under provisions of 26 U.S.C. §6020(b). It follows that if IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to unilaterally execute these returns, Form 1040, 1041, and 1120 returns are not mandatory. Below are listed the forms that 6020(b) give authority for:
5.1.11.6.10 (05-27-1999) IRC 6020(b) Authority
1. The following returns may be prepared, signed and assessed under the authority of IRC 6020(b):
1. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
2. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
3. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
4. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
5. Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return
6. Form CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
7. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income.
2. Pursuant to IRM 1.2.2.97, Delegations of Authority, Order Number 182 (rev. 7), dated 5/5/1997, revenue officers GS-09 and above, and Collection Support Function managers GS-09 and above, have the authority to prepare and execute returns under IRC 6020(b).
In the historical statement, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue admitted that Congress did not create a Bureau of Internal Revenue via the 1862 act in which the Office of Commissioner of the Internal Revenue was created, alleged that Congress intended to create a Bureau. In reality, the 1862 legislation created the offices of “assessor” and “collector”, in addition to the office of Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. Assessors and collectors were appointed for each revenue district somewhat as U.S. Attorney’s are appointed today. Those appointed to these offices continued to collect internal revenue within States of the Union until the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was implemented. The two offices were administratively abolished via Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to Internal Revenue Service via Treasury Order # 150-27, which was not published in the Federal Register in compliance with requirements of the Federal Registry Act. (See 44 U.S.C. §§1501 et seq., particularly § 1505(a)
UNITED STATES v. GERMAINE, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S Ct. 1131 (1886), and numerous other cases that reinforce the determination that “there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill.”
This case is supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in CHRYSLER CORP. v BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) in footnote 23: “There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Acts of July 1, 1862, ch 119 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.”
The Internal Revenue operates in an ancillary or other secondary capacity under contract, memorandum of agreement or some comparable device to provide services under original authority delegated to the Treasury financial Management Service or some other Bureau of the Department of the Treasury; The contracted or otherwise authorized services extend only to government employees and employers, as defined at 26 U.S.C. §§ 3401(c), and (d):
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ``employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employer'' means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that-- (1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term ``employer'' (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and
(3) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term ``employer'' (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.
(Exhibit 23)
The authorization is essentially intergovernmental in nature. It does not extend to private sector enterprises in States of the Union. See also 12 Stat 472 for the person’s salaries and pay was to be levied under the organic intent of the Congress. This is also revealed within 26 U.S.C. 6331 (a) and (b):
Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section
6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
(b) Seizure and sale of property
The term ``levy'' as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a levy shall extend only to property possessed and obligations existing at the time thereof. In any case in which the Secretary may levy upon property or rights to property, he may seize and sell such property or rights to property (whether real or personal, tangible or intangible). (Exhibit 24)
It is very interesting to note that the above quoted subsection (a) does not appear on any notices of lien or levy that are sent out. This is clearly a fraudulent concealment of truth that is perpetrated by the Internal Revenue Service and their agents and officers to deceive and coerce citizens who are not in their jurisdiction.
It is also revealed under the “STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS AT 1111.2 (3) …that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had from the Act of March 3, 1863,” This clearly establishes that Congress thought they had but neither factually nor legally evidenced establishing a Bureau of Internal Revenue with a successor known as the Internal Revenue Service.
The pocket Commission Handbook, located in Chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Manual § 1.16.3 Authorized Pocket Commission Holder, lists IRS personnel who are authorized to have pocket commissions. By cross-referencing to the delegation of authority to issue summons, it appears that all IRS personnel authorized to issue summonses are under the Assistant Commissioner (International). If the authorities are accurate, any examination(s) would constitute a sham preceding under color of authority of the United States. To the best of my knowledge, I have never received income from sources and activities subject to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International).
In addition, SCHULZ v. IRS, (2d Cir. 2005) the Court held:
“absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until the summons is backed by a federal court order.”
Therefore, not only are you acting outside of your scope of authority, as defined in your own manual, the summons you issued has no force of law to support it.
Further, if you will consult Part 14 of the Internal Revenue Manual, “International” at § 114.1, “Compliance and Customer Service Managers Handbook”, you will find that examination, collection, criminal investigation and customer service functions are all categorized under the Assistant Commissioner (International). There is no corresponding categorization that might qualify as “domestic” operations.
If you will also consult 26 C.F.R. § 601-1.1 (Exhibit 26), you will find that IRS personnel have jurisdiction for examination and collection only within Internal Revenue Districts; all other functions fall under jurisdiction of the foreign district director, now the Assistant Commissioner (International). The Secretary of the Treasury has never established internal revenue districts in the States of the Union, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7621 AND Executive Order #10289. (Exhibit 27) Therefore you must be operating under presumption of Assistant Commissioner (International) jurisdiction.
All of the activities listed above begin with “canvassing” and “examination”, which requires you or your business to be within an internal revenue district. Of course that would lead us to ask where such revenue districts are located. Although that’s a reasonable question, the first question we need to ask should actually be, “Who is authorized by law to establish internal revenue districts and has that person actually established any”?
There are several legal documents that speak to this subject, but one should start with the tax code. Section 7621 authorizes the President to establish internal revenue districts:
“The President shall establish convenient internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws. The President may from time to time alter such districts.”
Has the President actually done that? Well, sort of. While the President hasn’t actually created any internal revenue districts, he delegated that particular job to another member of the government. The note at the bottom of 7621 states:
“For delegation to Secretary of the Treasury of authority vested in President by this section, see section 1(g) of Executive Order No. 10289”
So we know that the President delegated this task to one of his cabinet officers – the Secretary of the Treasury. The next prudent question is; has the Secretary actually established internal revenue districts, and if so, where?
The answer to that question is “yes”, the Secretary has established internal revenue districts. He has done so in Treasury Order 150-019 In T.O. 150-01 we find that the Secretary has created 33 internal revenue districts that span the nation and cover every state in the Union.
O.K., so what’s the problem?
Although many Americans are aware of it, all written authorities (except Acts of Congress) that purport to have “general applicability” upon any person or group of persons, must have corresponding “regulations”, and these regulations must be published in the Federal Register. There are however a few exceptions.
Section 7621 does not require regulations for two reasons. First, the statute is so short and clear that no regulations are required; additionally it has no impact on the public generally because it simply “authorizes” the President to do something and does not lay any duty upon the public.
However, once the President delegated that authority to the Secretary, the Secretary needed to create regulations to let the public know exactly what he was doing and how it would (or might) affect the public. Accordingly, the Secretary created regulations associated with the authority delegated to him by the President in Executive Order 10289.
The regulations the Secretary created for EO 10289 are found in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 101(Exhibit 29). We know this because the nice folks at the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) have very kindly provided us with a cross- reference index that shows which regulations correspond to which statues or Executive Orders (EO). This index is known as the “Parallel Table of Authority and Rules”. Here is the entry for EO 10289:
E.O. 10289 ............................................19 Part 101
So, what does 19 CFR, Part 101, say? Here is the opening statement that defines the scope of the Part 101:
“Scope. This part sets forth general regulations governing the authority of Customs officers, and the location of Customs ports of entry, service ports and of Customs stations. It further sets forth regulations concerning the entry and clearance of vessels at Customs stations and a listing of Customs pre-clearance offices in foreign countries. In addition, this part contains provisions concerning the hours of business of Customs offices, the Customs seal, and the identification cards issued to Customs officers and employees.” [emphasis added]
As you can see, the Secretary has not chosen to create internal revenue districts for general tax purposes, but has created said districts only for certain matters pertaining to the customs laws of the United States – including the collection of customs duties (taxes).
This dovetails perfectly with the CFR’s Parallel Table of Authority and Rules entries for “canvassing” and “examinations”. According to the National Archive and Records Administration (the nice folks who compile and publish the CFR and the Federal Register) the only “implementing regulations” for 26 USC 7601 and 7602 are for issues pertaining to alcohol importation:
7601—7606 ......................................27 Part 70
7602 ......................................27 Parts 170, 296
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.”
What was that about what the Supreme Court has held?
"Tax protestors are simply WRONG, in addition to the obvious fact that they all Hate America and blame America for the fact that they are losers."
Not true, they are amazing people pursuing professions that you and I can only dream of. Take Eddie Brown for example, he was an exterminator, but he retired because the long hours and hard work got to him. Besides, why work when your wife has a real job and can pay for you to pursue all your anti-government shenanigans?
Brownie used to kill bugs for a living, now he's about to kill himself. How can you call him, and others like him, a loser?
"My browser keeps locking up is anyone else having a problem?"
IT MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM READING THIS ANTI-GOVERNMENT CONTENT. BETTER GET YOUR G.I. JOES AND SIPPY CUPS READY!
IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
Section 1203 – Termination of Employment for Misconduct
Section 1203
A. Provision(s) covered: Section 1203, Termination of Employment for Misconduct
B. Background: This new provision was enacted In response to the widespread perception that IRS employees are not held fully accountable for improper conduct affecting taxpayers. The section provides that IRS employees must be charged with misconduct and terminated if there has been a judicial or final administrative determination that the employee committed any of the following acts or omissions:
1. willful failure to obtain the required approval signatures on documents authorizing the seizure of a taxpayer’s home, personal belongings, or business assets;
2. providing a false statement under oath with respect to a material matter involving a taxpayer or taxpayer representative;
3. with respect to a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service, the violation of --
A. any right under the Constitution of the United States; or
B. any civil right established under --
i. title VI or VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
ii. title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;
iii. the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;
iv. the Age Discrimination Act of 1975;
v. section 501 or 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; or
vi. title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
4. falsifying or destroying documents to conceal mistakes made by any employee with respect to a matter involving a taxpayer or taxpayer representative;
5. assault or battery on a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service, but only if there is a criminal conviction, or a final judgment by a court in a civil case, with respect to the assault or battery;
6. violations of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Department of Treasury regulations, or policies of the Internal Revenue Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service;
7. willful misuse of the provisions of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the purpose of concealing information from a congressional inquiry,
8. willful failure to file any return of tax required under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on or before the date prescribed therefor (including any extensions), unless such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect,
9. willful understatement of Federal tax liability, unless such understatement is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, and
10. threatening to audit a taxpayer for the purpose of extracting personal gain or benefit.
Internal Revenue Code, Section 7214:
“IRC 7214 (a) unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents. Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States –
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law, or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than authorized by law...
(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment,...
(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return or statement, ...shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment...”
Anonymoust wrote, "all Taxprotestors are wrong, hate American & are losers."
To disparage a victim of fraud & oppression, who doesn't acquiesce to the gross malfeasance, of gov-gone-bad, is to re-brand integrity.
Take a look in the mirror & pay heed to the barcode on your forehead, as you are obviously either an agent OR a one of the government's good little (brainwashed) sheople.
Difficult to reconcile "amazing people pursuing professions" and "Eddie Brown for example, he was an exterminator"
Pool cleaners, firewood choppers, window washers, and exterminators, UNITE!
"Hear Ye, Hear Ye!! We The People Want To Interview Anyone Who's Against Ed & Elaine Brown"
Those are the words of a blog heading, on the main page of this site. I therefore suggest that writers, such as "anonymous" to take up their cause & voice their position/sentiments!!!
I tend to display a degree of loquacity, when describing something that stirs my passion; but after reading the words posted @ 12:05, by "thurson"... I think a succinct "WOW" will suffice!
Well-written & executed with unequivocal veracity! Your words would've made Thomas Jefferson smile & the (dis)likes of Woodrow Wilson (& the anonymous agent)cringe!
I vote "thurston" for president! Seriously, though, for a candidate, who WILL champion the good will of the Constitution, i.e., We The People, vote for Ron Paul in `08!!!
The reason that the malfeasant judge denied virtually every motion, of Ed & Elaine Brown, to enter evidence & present witnesses, was because if he didn't... the TRUTH would have been exposed & the Browns would've been acquitted!
Here are few interesting links, to those interested in that TRUTH...
1) http://www.bengraydon.com/history.html
2) http://www.givemeliberty.org/
3) http://www.apfn.org/movies/mistaken-indentity.wmv
4)http://www.jbs.org/node/318
&
http://www.jbs.org/node/711
5) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023
"Magana Charta" Is that Spanish for "really big chart?"
Or did you perhaps mean the Magna Carta? I didn't think that applied here after that whole revolution thing, the constitutional convention, and all that.
Actually, It is the INCOM TAX ADVOCATES who are wrong, and who all Hate America and what this Country stands for. Because it is the Income Tax Advocate, Who primarally Benifits in some way from the Income Tax Imposed upon others.
Most People who Agree with the Income tax are those who Impose it, or, are those in Congress who are in fact... too damned scared of the fed to Honor their own Oath of Office and put a stop to it.
The rest of the People who agree with the Income tax are Citizens who simply have not studied, or do not know what the Constitution, and the Laws actually Say.
Most People, when trying to understand tax law, Go directly to the IRS for information, and are Decieved about the ACTUAL LAWS, and are burried so deeply in the Internal Revenue Code, that they simply give up anyway.
They have not made any CLEAR Laws regarding Income Tax ti cite to the People, Because doing so would show that there never was one, and, in essence, show themselves to be Theives of Labor.
I Myself believe in Most Taxes that we all pay. What I do not believe in, is an income tax imposed on American Citizen's who derive their entire income solely from WITHIN THE US, and in the Private Sector!
It has been handed down as Un-Constitutional Time and Time again! Those of you who do not agree are under-studied regarding the Laws and the Constitution itself... Are too Lazy to study them at all, and are more eager to take the IRS's word for it... Too Scared to argue the facts you know to be true... Or are a flat out Communist Bastard being paid off to shut your Mouth and close your eyes on the Constitution.
There it is... plain and simple. ED BROWN IS A TRUE PATRIOT! He is the epidamy of the Word itself... And He has more intestinal Fortitude than the Majority of the People in thei Contry who CLAIM to be Patriot Citizens. You should... whether you support him or not... Give him your Utmost respect and Admiration for Standing on his beliefs... Because most of you, have never done anything so profound in your Life! You would much rather Lay Down, and Concede to the Government, everything that makes you a PERSON UNDER GOD.
If you were a Farmer, and cought someone stealing your Chickens, you'ld shoot them... If they were raiding your Crops... You'ld shoot them... If they were stealing your Horses... You'ld shoot them.
Well I have news for you Folks... The Government has been Stealing Eggs out of your Hen House for over 80 years!
Wake up! For the sake of your own Children and their Future! Soon... the Government will be taking .90cents of every Dollar you make... and your Children will work for free!
Ed & Elaine are monument to what our founding fathers meant when they created the Constitution. They put a face to what the creators of the Constitution meant by "We the People". It's truly amazing that so many choose to ignore what is happening to our country. My husband says to me why do you waste your time with all these things, He Said even if I want to believe in half of what you claim; you know there's nothing any of us can do! Being an optimist I believe we can if we stand together. I told him; look at what they did to the Jews; I don't want to be a sheep lead to slaughter, to go willingly without a dang good fight.
Our leaders are allowing Illegal immigrants into our Country for several reasons, not the least of which is it gives them power. The more people they can get to be dependent on the government the more powerful they become. The real sad part is that within the next ten or fifteen years we the people will become the minority. Who will fight for our rights then? Their own country wasn't worth the effort to fight for, why would they fight here?
Pres. Bush has given 7000 Iraqi's visas to America.... So now we will be importing the Shiites and Sunnis so they can bring their fight here on our land.
Don't misunderstand me... I have nothing against legal immigrants.... after all they helped build our Great Nation we have today... the immigrants brought their cultures, most for the betterment of man kind... But its got to make you wonder what culture Islam has to offer other than a fanatical religion and war. We have to start looking at the broader picture Folks.. The excuse of not having enough time is over, because if you don't start seeing things for what they truly are it will be too late, for us, our children, and grandchildren...
YankeesPie
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home