Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States, Sanction Litigants, When the Court Misstates the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

Sixteenth Amendment 16th Amendment XVI
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States, Sanction Litigants, When the Court Misstates the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943
_________________________________________________
http://www.senate.gov
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2579) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2579 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2580) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2580 2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2581 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2581
_________________________________________________
(Fed.R.App.P. 38 sanctions for raising frivolous sixteenth amendment argument in petition for rehearing);
………………………………………………..
(Fed.R.App.P. 38 sanctions imposed on pro se litigants raising frivolous sixteenth amendment contentions)
_________________________________________________
1⃣ Nov. 12 1981 Lonsdale
2⃣ Jan. 11 1982 McCarty
3⃣ Feb. 6 1984 Parker
4⃣ Dec. 18 1984 Lovell
5⃣ Sept. 6 1989 Becraft
6⃣ Nov. 27 1990 Collins
7⃣ July 11 1994 Mundt
8⃣ July 22 1996 MacZka
9⃣ Dec. 24 1998 Lyman
🔟 2010 Ulloa
1⃣1⃣ Dec. 29 2014 Taliaferro
_________________________________________________
1⃣
Nov. 12 1981 Lonsdale

Fifth Circuit Judge

Thomas Gibbs GEE

Emilio GARZA

Albert A. TATE, Jr.

Appellants’ contentions are stale ones, long settled against them

As such they are frivolous

Bending over backwards, in indulgence of appellants’ pro se status, we today forbear the sanctions of Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P.

We publish this opinion as notice to future litigants that the continued advancing of these long-defunct arguments invites such sanctions, however
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/661/661.F2d.71.81-4215.html
………………………………………………..
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/661/71/298013/
======================================
2⃣
Jan. 11 1982 McCarty

Fifth Circuit Judge

Thomas Gibbs GEE

Emilio GARZA

Albert A. TATE, Jr.
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/665/596/408342/
………………………………………………..
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/665/665.F2d.596.80-2231.81-1021.html
======================================
3⃣
Feb. 6 1984 Parker

Fifth Circuit Judge

Thomas Gibbs GEE

Henry Anthony POLITZ

Samuel D. JOHNSON, Jr.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge

The absence of a semblance of merit in any issue raised in appellant’s appeal mandates a repeat of the warning we gave in Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d at 72, concerning the very claims raised in this case:

Appellants’ contentions are stale ones, long settled against them

As such they are frivolous

Bending over backwards, in indulgence of appellants’ pro se status, we today forbear the sanctions of Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P.

We publish this opinion as notice to future litigants that the continued advancing of these long-defunct arguments invite such sanctions, however

Our warning has been ignored

We now invoke the sanctions of Fed.R.App.P. 38 and assess appellant with double costs

This time we do not award damages but sound a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years

The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/724/724.F2d.469.83-4300.html
======================================
4⃣
Dec. 18 1984 Lovell

Chief Judge

Seventh Circuit Judge

Walter J. CUMMINGS Jr.

Richard Dickson CUDAHY

Joel Martin FLAUM
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/755/755.F2d.517.84-1547.html
======================================
5⃣
Sept. 6 1989 Becraft

Ninth Circuit Judge

Warren J. FERGUSON

William A. NORRIS

Charles E. WIGGINS
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/885/885.F2d.547.88-1113.html
………………………………………………..
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/885/547/144356/
======================================
6⃣
Nov. 27 1990 Collins

Tenth Circuit Judge

Stephanie Kulp SEYMOUR

Bobby Ray BALDOCK

Wade BRORBY

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/920/920.F2d.619.90-6077.html
======================================
7⃣
July 11 1994 Mundt

JONES

Circuit Judges

GRAHAM, District Judge.*

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge
——————————————————————
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/F3/29/29.F3d.233.html
======================================
8⃣
July 22 1996 MacZka

United States District Court

District Judge

David W. McKeague
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/957/988/1581452/
======================================
9⃣
Dec. 24 1998 Lyman

Tenth Circuit Judge

Stephen Hale ANDERSON

Monroe G. McKAY

Carlos F. LUCERO
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/166/166.F3d.349.98-4109.html
======================================
🔟
April 6 2010 Ulloa

United States Tax Court Judge

David GUSTAFSON
——————————————————————
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ulloa.TCM.WPD.pdf
======================================
1⃣1⃣
Dec. 29 2014 Taliaferro

Eleventh Circuit Judge

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK
——————————————————————
https://courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
WHY SHOULD THE INFERIOR UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURTS BE ALLOWED TO MISSTATE THE UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN SANCTION LITIGANTS WHOM THE COURT ALLEGES HAVE DONE WHAT THE COURT DID, BECAUSE OF CONGRESS’ INFATUATION WITH STARE DECISIS
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
………………………………………………..
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis
………………………………………………..
http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
_________________________________________________
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
_________________________________________________
Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley
@ChuckGrassley
(R – IA)
https://grassley.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@GrassleyOffice

_________________________________________________
MAJORITY
_________________________________________________
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
@SenOrrinHatch
(R – UT)
https://hatch.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Jeff Sessions
@SenatorSessions
(R – AL)
https://sessions.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Lindsey Graham
@GrahamBlog
(R – SC)
https://lgraham.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator John Cornyn
@JohnCornyn
(R – TX)
https://cornyn.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Michael S. Lee
Senator Mike Lee
@SenMikeLee
(R – UT)
https://lee.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
(R – TX)
https://cruz.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@TedCruz

@CruzNews2016

_________________________________________________
Senator Jeff Flake
@JeffFlake
(R – AZ)
https://flake.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@SenFlakeStaff

_________________________________________________
Senator David Vitter
@DavidVitter
(R – LA)
https://vitter.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator David Perdue
@PerdueSenate
(R – GA)
https://perdue.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Thom Tillis
@SenThomTillis
(R – NC)
https://tillis.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@ThomTillis

_________________________________________________
Ranking Member
Senator Patrick Leahy
@SenatorLeahy
(D – VT)
https://leahy.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
MINORITY
_________________________________________________
Senator Dianne Feinstein
@SenFeinstein
(D – CA)
https://feinstein.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@DianneFeinstein

_________________________________________________
Senator Charles Ellis Schumer
Senator Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
(D – NY)
https://schumer.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@SenatorSchumer

_________________________________________________
Senator Dick Durbin
@SenatorDurbin
(D – IL)
https://durbin.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
@SenWhitehouse
(D – RI)
https://whitehouse.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@SLarson83

_________________________________________________
Senator Amy Klobuchar
@AmyKlobuchar
(D – MN)
https://klobuchar.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Al Franken
@AlFranken
(D – MN)
https://franken.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Christopher A. Coons
@ChrisCoons
(D – DE)
https://coons.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Richard Blumenthal
@SenBlumenthal
(D – CT)
https://blumenthal.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Let the Inferior Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iL
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Let the Inferior Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iA
_________________________________________________
Why Has the United States Congress (@USCongress): The United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) and United States Senate (@USSenate), Joint Committee on Taxation (@jctgov) Allowed the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) to Rely on Inferior Courts of the United States who Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-i4
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) Judiciary Committee (@HouseJudiciary) Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015), in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943 pg. 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hk
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
________________________________________________
Why Does the Congress of the United States of America Let the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) Lie about the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916)❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-g2
________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov (IRS L📍a ®💲 Lie about Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493, 1916)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-gp
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
_________________________________________________
United States Constitution

First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

peaceably to assemble,

and

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT

FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
………………………………………………..
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
_________________________________________________
Go Fund Me

#GoFundMe

gofundme.com/upsdgw
_________________________________________________

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s