Thanks for your reply. People wiser than I tell me not to argue on the internet, but here are my thoughts and questions.
I worry that points are repeated again and again in anti-tax circles and people start to believe them, not because they have any basis, but because they are repeated so many times. I haven't found the basis for the anti-tax arguments I've seen so far.
You are both correct and incorrect. You are correct in stating that it was ratified and passed into that law you mention as it is a fact and cannot be disputed. You are however incorrect in your assumption that it was lawfully or properly ratified, which it was NOT. There are a couple of attorney Bill Benson and LArry Bercraft who are fighting to prove this and are silently winning their cases, one by one. Of course this is not and will not be publicized anywhere for Americans to see.
You know this, but I'll repeat it: The Constitution of the United States has a system. If there is a question about a law, there is an organization which is set up for the purpose of deciding on that question. That is the judicial branch of the government, with final decisions made by the Supreme Court. According to Supreme Court decisions, the 16th amendment was passed, is now part of the Constitution and is now the law of the land. Reasonable people can disagree whether or not the decision was good or correct, but I can not see how you can argue that it is not the law of the land.
You said Americans do not know of the successes of Bill Benson and Larry Becraft. On line, I find many references to their successes, but no evidence. It could be that they are winning many cases, but the evidence is hidden. It is also true that they may not be winning, but people are saying they are. Evidence would provide the answer. Court records and judgments are public records. I don't know why cases would be concluded with a confidentiality agreement if the law is on their side. It is also possible that they have won a few jury trials (as shown in the movie), but that those decisions were reversed on appeal.
As far as income goes, the simple fact that it is stated in IRC code states "income derived from other sources such as wages, rents etc" means that income is derived from sources such as wages and others. Something that is derived from something else is inherently different. So income is not same as wages. But that is besides the point.
I think you are saying that a Ford is a kind of car, therefore it's not a car. That doesn't make sense to me but I may be misunderstanding. Regardless, the courts have not supported your argument.
What you should read is what is defined as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under the IRS code and you should understand who is liable for taxes. You will be surprised. After you read that you will realize that whether income is wages is totally irrelevant as most Americans are not liable because they do not live in the USA as defined by the code. Surprise!
I think you are referring to the idea that the United States of America only includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam etc. I have a hard time going through all the legal language, but I think that the Supreme Court in the case Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. established the opposite where they said the "sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves."
Furthermore you should realize that the current taxing system was instituted in 1913 and until 1950s, only 10% of americans filed their taxes. How's so if we are all liable?? Did 90% of americans not work??
I couldn't find any evidence that until the 1950s only 10% of Americans filed their taxes, but all the older people I asked said that they had for as long as they remember. (Memories of old people are not strong evidence, but I couldn't find any evidence of what you said either.)
Finally Federal Reserve is not a government agency or affiliated with the government. It is as much Federal as is FedEx. You are a bit confused, but that is ok. I'm here to help you a bit. Up to you to realize it for yourself though.
You are right the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is an independent agency of the United States government. Other agencies in the same category are the CIA, FCC, EPA, NASA and many more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States _government
The differences between it and FedEx make it clear. The Federal Reserve Act was passed by congress and signed by the President in 1913. The members and head of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate. All National Banks are required by law to be members in and contribute to the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Act has been amended by the congress many times in the last 95 years.
FedEx, Federal Express at the time, was established by Fred Smith in 1971. He had come up with the idea while in college. It began operating in 1973 delivering cargo overnight by jet. It acquired many other cargo companies and more recently Kinko's. It became a publicly traded company in 1980 and is now controlled by a board of directors elected by its shareholders. Fred Smith is still the chairman, president and chief executive officer.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html And since you like wiki you should check that as well. Even though wiki entries are modifiable by ANYONE it states that it is a quasi-private, quasi-public. Does not mention, quasi-government.
The link from the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship does establish that for the purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, a Reserve Bank is not a Federal Agency. That case (Lewis v. United States) is about damaged caused by a car owned and operated by the Los Angeles Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. It doesn't say anything about the Federal Reserve Board. And it does say that the the Reserve Banks are federal instrumentalities for a number of other purposes. More importantly, the case quotes from H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913) a statement that says in part "the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so."
So forget the movie. I haven't even watched it and that's because Aaron Russo will not tell me anything I did not know 10yrs ago. You should educate yourself before embarrassing yourself in here.
OK
reply
share
sticks_m
16 years ago
You are sadly mistaken. You need to do some research brother.
And just because something was passed into the law/constitution doesn't mean it was done legally. Look at the illegal war in Iraq we're fighting. It needed to be approved by congress for it to be legal, it wasn't yet we're fighting it.
And you need to read brushaber case again, the court ruled that the 16h amendement didn't give any more taxing power than it did before. I don't understand how some people can read this and say what you did. But then again some judges do too, which shows you the education level of this country. Although in their defense one could claim that they might be doing it on purpose.
""...the proposition and the contentions under [the 16th Amendment]...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another;
That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned;
This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion…
…Moreover in addition the Conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.
…the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”
…the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution -- a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes...
Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the Conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment…
[Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)]"
read again especially this part "the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes..." And for your info Brushaber didn't pay taxes on dividends of his stocks. That is TAXABLE income.
Maybe you should take an english class, in another country maybe, cuz they don't teach you anything here.
And something that is derived from something else is inherently different. So ford is a car, what????
You said "The members and head of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate."
That is correct, however the pool of candidates is provided by the federal reserve officials. It's like me saying, america vote for president, but you can only vote for Obama or Huckabee, forget the other candidates.
Your ignorance does not surprise me bro, america is full of people like you. And they just like you to stay like that. You can't even comprehend what you read, because in part you've already decided on what it is you're reading, instead of focusing on what's on hand. So just keep your credit score in check so you can keep borrowing/slaving and you'll be ok. You can have everything and anything you want. Except your freedom. That you gave away so long you don't even know what it means anymore.
reply
share