From The Reader Comments
Thurston said...
In Showing of the Inherent law regarding the Federal Income Tax, questions of liability can also raise questions of constitutionality.
The recent case in the App. Ct. in D.C. shows that where an individual wants the law to be examined to its foundation to make a claim of Constitutionality in the immediate application, the Court must examine the law to its contemporaneous manifestation to the 16th AMendment (Myers v. U.S.).
As this was applied the Court then found for the Citizen and the section of law as applied by the IRS was struck as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SEE THE GOVERNMENT DOES GET ABUSIVE AND DOES APPLY ITS ARGUMENTS IN AN OVERBROAD MANNER!
If the definition of gross income is examined in its subjugation to all exemption provisions of Subtitle A, 861 is still there, and its contemporaneous legislation to the 16th AMendment proves that the Browns never made any "gross incoem" as defined by law.
Is this why the Judge does not want the LAW argued in HIS (but what s really OUR) court?
The judge just wants to determine facts without sonsideration of teh LAW that gives rise to facts.
This is tyranny and a railroad by allowing the unconstitutionally overbroad application of law to the property and persons of the Browns.
In the Economy Case it is clearly shown that those outside of the jurisdiction of the IRS cannot be grought into the jurisdiction fo teh IRC, even if they ever filed a return.
From the reader comments here.
In Showing of the Inherent law regarding the Federal Income Tax, questions of liability can also raise questions of constitutionality.
The recent case in the App. Ct. in D.C. shows that where an individual wants the law to be examined to its foundation to make a claim of Constitutionality in the immediate application, the Court must examine the law to its contemporaneous manifestation to the 16th AMendment (Myers v. U.S.).
As this was applied the Court then found for the Citizen and the section of law as applied by the IRS was struck as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SEE THE GOVERNMENT DOES GET ABUSIVE AND DOES APPLY ITS ARGUMENTS IN AN OVERBROAD MANNER!
If the definition of gross income is examined in its subjugation to all exemption provisions of Subtitle A, 861 is still there, and its contemporaneous legislation to the 16th AMendment proves that the Browns never made any "gross incoem" as defined by law.
Is this why the Judge does not want the LAW argued in HIS (but what s really OUR) court?
The judge just wants to determine facts without sonsideration of teh LAW that gives rise to facts.
This is tyranny and a railroad by allowing the unconstitutionally overbroad application of law to the property and persons of the Browns.
In the Economy Case it is clearly shown that those outside of the jurisdiction of the IRS cannot be grought into the jurisdiction fo teh IRC, even if they ever filed a return.
From the reader comments here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home