Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't worry, you're in no danger of getting any of this right.
With all the waste of time you conservatives spent over President Obama's birth certificate, maybe you could do a little investigation on your own to find the legal instrument by which you were declared a corporation. If it happened there has to be a paper trail, right?
Or maybe you could quote for me the provision of the Constitution that says that taxes on individuals are prohibited.
A corporation is a person.
An individual is a person.
A person is a corporation.
Just ask Justice Roberts.
Without the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment would not have been tried.
So Police Officers performing the duties Society hired them to do are Lawbreakers. That truly does put you right there with MOVE and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Like I said, I only hope that no police officers are hurt taking you away.
Police officers are human beings just like the rest of us. They are not perfect Gods to be worshiped. Is it true that they never commit crimes? I have heard of many cases of corruption and there have been rumors of planting evidence and cover ups. You have no right to judge and convict others for their belief in preventing violent crime and murder. Whether at the hands of civilians or police, assault and murder is illegal. If a citizen cannot defend themselves or others from excessive force or lethal force for no reason, then we live in Nazi Germany and have a Gestapo. This works both ways though. In a free society the police can also call for help from the public to combat crime. We know that the vast majority of police officers start out with a sincere desire to fight crime. If they see a few of their own get away with committing crimes others may join in.
The trend of separating police from the public through the use of paramilitary tactics makes them appear as the enemy. Personally I would like to see a better relationship where locals know their officers and can communicate with them so they can know the potential troublemakers. As all citizens police have the right to defend themselves from aggression including deadly force. However, I believe that most problems can be solved before it gets to that point. Again, if someone breaks down your door many will shoot first and ask questions later. Work to reduce the number of laws and you will have less crime. The only reason to forcibly enter a home should be if a life inside is in immediate danger. Otherwise just knock like a normal person or call if there is a problem. When approaching violent criminals use body armor and have backup. Never ever use force on nonviolent suspects.
Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but...........The legal situation, including Philadelphia Home Rule has been explained so if you are not capable of understanding it, strap on a gun in Philly and someone will explain it to you. Be sure to tell them about how you think you should be able to shoot Policemen
Ask Justice Roberts if a corporation is a sentient being.
"In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia".[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining "consciousness", which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind."
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
1. I quoted the law. The statute is not promulgated by the IRS, it is law adopted by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by the President.
2. As is ordinarily the case with these tax cheats, there is a tiny grain of truth. In the Brushaber case the Supreme Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment was not a grant of any new power to tax incomes because Congress already had the inherent power to tax incomes. What was made clear in the Brushaber decision was that the Sixteenth Amendment revoked any prohibition of direct, unapportioned taxation that had existed in the Constitution before the ratification of the amendment. FindLaw | Cases and Codes
According to the Constitution, prior to the 16th amendment:
Direct taxes are subject to the rule of apportionment.
Indirect taxes (imposts, duties, & excises) are subject to the rule of uniformity.
Congress had the power to lay a direct tax by the rule of apportionment.
Congress had the power to lay an indirect tax by the rule of uniformity.
Congress DID NOT HAVE the power to lay a direct tax that disregards the rule of apportionment.
apportionment: A state's apportionment population is the sum of its resident population and a count of overseas U.S. military and federal civilian employees (and their dependents living with them) allocated to the state, as reported by the employing federal agencies.
Prior to the case you cited, there was another case that was submitted to the courts prior to the 16th amendments ratification in 1913. (you know where I'm going even before I go there)
The men who framed and adopted that instrument had just emerged from the struggle for independence whose rallying cry had been that "taxation and representation go together."
The mother country had taught the colonists,in the contests waged to establish that taxes could not be imposed by the sovereign except as they were granted by the representatives of the realm, that self-taxation constituted the main security against oppression.As Burke declared in his speech on Conciliation with America, the defenders of the excellence of the English constitution
"took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that, in all monarchies, the people must, in effect, themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist."
The principle was that the consent of those who were expected to pay it was essential to the validity of any tax." [emphasis added]
So prior to the 16th amendment we have the Pollock case, which won. Then after the 16th amendment we have the case you cited, Brushaber, who lost.
"According to the Constitution, after the 16th amendment:
Direct taxes are still subject to the rule of apportionment. Indirect taxes (imposts, duties, & excises) are still subject to the rule of uniformity. Congress still has the power to lay a direct tax by the rule of apportionment. Congress still has the power to lay an indirect tax by the rule of uniformity. Congress still DOES NOT HAVE the power to lay a direct tax that disregards the rule of apportionment.
In short and in essence, The Sixteenth Amendment acts strictly and solely upon the Supreme Court."
The 16th Amendment undoes the Pollock case, which had sheltered "income" derived from property from the tax. What kept screaming out in my head though out all of my research was, "no new taxes".
TruthInTaxation.us :: The Universe Of All Possible Taxes
" Smith and those who drafted both the Constitution and the 16th Amendment understood that a tax on “incomes” and a tax on “sources” are two different types of tax. A tax on “income” diminishes the profit while leaving the source of the income intact. A tax on “sources” diminishes the source.
<sniped>
Constitutionally speaking, the income tax of the 16th Amendment is an indirect tax and can be levied only on investment income and business profit. Conclusion: This case correctly illustrates Congress’ Constitutional powers of taxation and would apply to the 16th Amendment. Apportioned tax: Congress has the authority to levy a direct tax for specific reasons, such as financing a war, so long as the amount needed is identified and each person ( a poor person or a wealthy person) pays the same amount of tax—an equal portion of the total amount levied."
Financing a war, Abraham Lincoln did just that, signed into law 3% flat rate, to pay for the civil war, then signed it right back out again.
So in conclusion, what changed? The tariff act of 1913, which caused, Brushaber to lose his court case. The establishment of the central bank, the federal bank 1913...and we know longer have a flat rate in which we pay, but an ever increasing rate which is settled by those who we hope are representing us well. And an ever growing power of the United States government, to control and have its people voluntarily give up their rights as they were founded in the beginning of this great nation.
The sovereign citizen, does not want to play the game, they want out. Probable reason in that they know longer believe they are being represented within their best interests by the 'elected' (?) United States government. I can't say as I blame them, because what I see is the government did allot of back peddling to get its citizens to "voluntarily" hand over a portion of their wages and create the I.R.S.
That case isn't even about a person's wages at all, it's about property taxes. The court cases are about incomes derived from sources other than a person's pay check.
This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses. That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens:
Commit murder and physical assault;
Threaten judges, law enforcement professionals, and government personnel;
Impersonate police officers and diplomats;
Use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver’s licenses; and
Engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa
Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but...........The legal situation, including Philadelphia Home Rule has been explained so if you are not capable of understanding it, strap on a gun in Philly and someone will explain it to you. Be sure to tell them about how you think you should be able to shoot Policemen
We can't shoot a policeman, even if they are corrupt as they are above the law. Everyone knows that. That's why it is best to do what you are told, even if it is wrong and never ever question a policeman's integrity. They have special right to passage you know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have special right to passage you know.
