President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, John Watson LUNGSTRUM of Topeka, Kansas, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Pembroke Country-Day School (1963 @PemHillSchool @PemHillAlumni ), Yale University (1967 B.A. @Yale @YaleAlumni), University of Kansas School of Law (1970 J.D. @UKanLRev @KUNews @KUAlumni), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, John Watson LUNGSTRUM of Topeka, Kansas, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Pembroke Country-Day School (1963 @PemHillSchool @PemHillAlumni), Yale University (1967 B.A. @Yale @YaleAlumni), University of Kansas School of Law (1970 J.D. @UKanLRev @KUNews @KUAlumni), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-nP
_________________________________________________
Oct. 28 1996

John Cox, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – 99 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1996)

99 F.3d 1149

78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-7015

96-2 USTC P 50,598

No. 95-9025

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Oct. 28, 1996

BALDOCK

BRISCOE

Circuit Judges

LUNGSTRUM,** District Judge

Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation

Petitioner John Cox appeals from an order of the United States Tax Court

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991)

As in Collins, we consider this argument to be one that “defies credulity.” Id.

For eighty years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in federal enclaves

See

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

240 U.S. 1

12-19

(1916)
………………………………………………..
* If the court is only able to cite page numbers (12-19) because nothing in the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White supports its ORDER, maybe the court should go back to law school
——————————————————————
For eighty years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves. See Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/99/1149/639528/
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/099/99.F3d.1149.95-9025.html
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Tenth (10th) Circuit (Denver, Colorado)
………………………………………………..
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming
——————————————————————
John Watson LUNGSTRUM
be district judge, D1350 [31OC] Testimonies Committee on the Judiciary ( Senate): Nomination of John W. Lungstrum
——————————————————————
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRI-1991/html/CRI-1991-LUNGSTRUM-JOHN-W.htm
_________________________________________________
Oct 31, 1991 – PN521 – Nomination of John W. Lungstrum for the Judiciary: 102nd Congress by the U.S. President for United States District Judge
——————————————————————
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/102nd-congress/521
_________________________________________________
Nomination Number: PN1223-113 District Judge for the District of Kansas, vice John W. Lungstrum, (Confirmed)
——————————————————————
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial?PageNum_rs=6&
_________________________________________________
Mar 12, 2013 – Pending Judicial Nominees Federal court judge John W. Lungstrum announced in December
——————————————————————
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/aba-day/judvacs_kansas.authcheckdam.pdf
_________________________________________________
Jan 6, 2014 – Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, vice John W. Lungstrum, retired
——————————————————————
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/06/presidential-nominations-sent-senate-0
_________________________________________________

President Ronald R. Reagan (Ronald Reagan) Judicial Nominee, Bobby Ray BALDOCK of Rocky, Oklahoma, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of New Mexico Military Institute (1956 @NMMI @NMMIalumni), James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona College of Law (1960 J.D. @ArizonaLaw @UofA @UAAA), adjunct professor Eastern New Mexico University Roswell Campus (1962-1981 @ENMUR @ENMURoswellAlumni), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
President Ronald R. Reagan (Ronald Reagan) Judicial Nominee, Bobby Ray BALDOCK of Rocky, Oklahoma, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of New Mexico Military Institute (1956 @NMMI @NMMIalumni), James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona College of Law (1960 J.D. @ArizonaLaw @UofA
@UAAA), adjunct professor Eastern New Mexico University Roswell Campus (1962-1981 @ENMUR
@ENMURoswellAlumni), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-nP
_________________________________________________
Oct. 28 1996

John Cox, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – 99 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1996)

99 F.3d 1149

78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-7015

96-2 USTC P 50,598

No. 95-9025

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Oct. 28, 1996

BALDOCK

BRISCOE

Circuit Judges

LUNGSTRUM,** District Judge

Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation

Petitioner John Cox appeals from an order of the United States Tax Court

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991)

As in Collins, we consider this argument to be one that “defies credulity.” Id.

For eighty years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in federal enclaves

See

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

240 U.S. 1

12-19

(1916)
………………………………………………..
* If the court is only able to cite page numbers (12-19) because nothing in the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White supports its ORDER, maybe the court should go back to law school
——————————————————————
For eighty years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves. See Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/99/1149/639528/
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/099/99.F3d.1149.95-9025.html
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Tenth (10th) Circuit (Denver, Colorado)
………………………………………………..
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming
——————————————————————
PN256 – Nomination of Bobby Ray Baldock for the Judiciary: 98th Congress by the U.S. President for U. S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico
——————————————————————
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/98th-congress/256
_________________________________________________
PN631 – Nomination of Bobby Ray Baldock for the Judiciary: 99th Congress by the U.S. President for U. S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit
——————————————————————
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/99th-congress/631
——————————————————————
https://www.congress.gov/nominations?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%5B%2298%22%5D%2C%22nominee-state%22%3A%22New+Mexico%22%7D
——————————————————————

United States Federal Circuit Judge Bobby Ray BALDOCK, Circuit Judge Mary Beck BRISCOE, and District Judge John Watson LUNGSTRUM, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)

image
United States Federal Circuit Judge Bobby Ray BALDOCK, Circuit Judge Mary Beck BRISCOE, and District Judge John Watson LUNGSTRUM, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
Oct. 28 1996

John Cox, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – 99 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1996)

99 F.3d 1149

78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-7015

96-2 USTC P 50,598

No. 95-9025

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Oct. 28, 1996

BALDOCK

BRISCOE

Circuit Judges

LUNGSTRUM,** District Judge

Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation

Petitioner John Cox appeals from an order of the United States Tax Court

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991)

As in Collins, we consider this argument to be one that “defies credulity.” Id.

For eighty years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED
that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in federal enclaves

See

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

240 U.S. 1

12-19

(1916)
………………………………………………..
* If the court is only able to cite page numbers (12-19) because nothing in the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White supports its ORDER, maybe the court should go back to law school
——————————————————————
For eighty years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves. See Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/99/1149/639528/
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/099/99.F3d.1149.95-9025.html
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Tenth (10th) Circuit (Denver, Colorado)
………………………………………………..
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming
——————————————————————

Why does President Barack Hussein Obama (@POTUS @BarackObama) Allow the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS @IRSNews) to 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, 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”❓

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama (@POTUS @BarackObama) Allow the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS @IRSNews) to 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, 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”❓

_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! – Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-fI
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
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 TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
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 I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
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
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
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
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
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
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
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
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, Let the Inferior Federal 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
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
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-jx
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
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
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why has Jack Lew, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (@USTreasury), Let the #IRS 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, 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-kl
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Judge David GUSTAFSON in the United States Tax Court (#USTaxCourt) in New York City, New York, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jx
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKAY, and Circuit Judge Carlos F. LUCERO, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kx
_________________________________________________
David William McKeague
David W. McKeague of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, formerly United States Federal District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan – Southern Division, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kJ
_________________________________________________
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Stanley MARCUS (R) of New York, NY, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Queens College, City University of New York (1967 B.A. @CUNYLawSchool magna cum laude), Harvard Law School (1971 L.D. @Harvard_Law @Harvard), Religion and the Constitution, and Trial Advocacy, Brooklyn Law School (@BrooklynLaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ln
_________________________________________________
President Barack Hussein Obama (Barack Obama @BarackObama) Judicial Nominee, Adalberto Josè JORDAN (Adalberto Jordan) of Havana, Cuba, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of St. Brendan High School (1980 @StBrendanHigh), University of Miami (1984 B.A. @UnivMiami magna cum laude), University of Miami School of Law (1987 J.D. @UMLawSchool summa cum laude 2nd in class), adjunct professor, University of Miami School of Law, and Florida International University College of Law (@FIULaw) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax
case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ly
_________________________________________________
President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush) Judicial Nominee, Susan Harrell Black (Susan H. BLACK a/k/a Susan Sims Harrell) of Valdosta, Georgia, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Fairborn High School (1961 @FairbornSkyhawk), Florida State University (1964 B.A. @FloridaState), University of Florida College of Law (1967 J.D. @UFLaw @UnivOfFL), University of Virginia School of Law (1984 LL.M. @UVALaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-lJ
________________________________________________
President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David GUSTAFSON (1983-2008 TAX ATTORNEY) of Greenville, South Carolina, United States Federal Judge, United States Tax Court, New York, NY, Alumni of Bob Jones University (1978 @BJUedu @BJUAlumni summa cum laude), Duke University School of Law (1981 with distinction @DukeLaw Order of the Coif @DukeLawAlumni), executive editor Duke Law Journal (1980-1981 @DukeLawJournal), United States FEDERAL INCOME TAX case EPIC FAIL——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-lV
_________________________________________________
President Ronald R. Reagan (Ronald Reagan) Judicial Nominee, Stephen Hale ANDERSON of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Eastern Oregon College of Education (1949-1951), Brigham Young University (1955-1956 @BYU @BYUalumni), University of Utah (1957-1960 Bachelor of Laws @UUtah S.J. Quinney College of Law @SJQuinney Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society @UtahAlumni Order of the Coif) Editor-in-Chief Utah Law Review (@UtahLawReview) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-m2
________________________________________________
President James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) Judicial Nominee, Monroe G. McKAY of Huntsville, Utah, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Brigham Young University (1957 @BYU @BYUalumni), University of Chicago Law (1960 @UCLaw @UChicago), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-md
________________________________________________
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Carlos F. LUCERO, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Adams State College (1961 @AdamsState) and George Washington University (1964 @GWtweets #GWU @GWLaw @GWAlumni @GWToday), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ml
_________________________________________________
President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David William McKeague (David W. McKeague) of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Sixth (6th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals (6/9/2005 Senator Carl Levin @SenCarlLevin Senator Debbie Stabenow @Stabenow) President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, United States District Judge, United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, Alumni of University of Michigan (1968 B.A. @UMich @MichiganAlumni #UMAlumni) and University of Michigan Law School (1971 J.D. @UMichLaw @MichLawSchool), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kJ
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________

President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee David William McKeague (David W. McKeague) of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania United States Federal Circuit Judge Sixth (6th) Circuit United States Court of Appeals (6/9/2005 Carl Levin @SenCarlLevin Debbie Stabenow @Stabenow) President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee United States District Judge United States District Court Western District of Michigan Southern Division Alumni of University of Michigan (1968 B.A. @UMich @MichiganAlumni #UMAlumni) and University of Michigan Law School (1971 J.D. @UMichLaw @MichLawSchool) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David William McKeague (David W. McKeague) of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Sixth (6th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals (6/9/2005 Senator Carl Levin @SenCarlLevin Senator Debbie Stabenow @Stabenow) President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, United States District Judge, United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, Alumni of University of Michigan (1968 B.A. @UMich @MichiganAlumni #UMAlumni) and University of Michigan Law School (1971 J.D. @UMichLaw @MichLawSchool), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kJ
——————————————————————
David William McKeague (David W. McKeague) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, formerly United States Federal District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan – Southern Division, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
*990

United States v. Mundt,

29 F.3d 233,

237

(6th Cir.1994)

The Sixth Circuit quoted at length the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in

United States v. Collins,

920 F.2d 619,

629

(10th Cir.1990)

(citations omitted),

cert. denied,

500 U.S. 920,

111 S.Ct. 2022,

114 L.Ed.2d 108

(1991)

*991

… For seventy-five years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens
throughout the nation,
not just in federal enclaves,

see

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R.,

240 U.S. 1,

12-19

[36 S.Ct. 236,

239-42,

60 L.Ed. 493]

(1916);

efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous….

Mundt,

29 F.3d at 237

(quoting

Collins,

920 F.2d at 629)
_________________________________________________
*990

United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir.1994)

The Sixth Circuit quoted at length the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991)

*991 … For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves, see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 [36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493] (1916); efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous….Mundt, 29 F.3d at 237 (quoting Collins, 920 F.2d at 629)
_________________________________________________
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/957/988/1581452/
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Jul. 22 1996

United States v. MacZka,

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan –
957 F. Supp. 988

UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,
v.
Randall C. MACZKA, Respondent

No. 1:96-MC-41

United States District Court,

W.D. Michigan,

Southern Division

July 22, 1996

*989

Randall C. Maczka, White Cloud, MI

McKEAGUE, District Judge
_________________________________________________
image
7/7/2003
………………………………………………..
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/sres192
——————————————————————
PN9 – Nomination of David McKeague for the Judiciary: 108th Congress
………………………………………………..
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/108th-congress/9——————————————————————
6/9/2005 PN196 – Nomination of David W. McKeague for the Judiciary: 109th Congress
………………………………………………..
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/109th-congress/196——————————————————————
7/9/2005
………………………………………………..
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2005-06-09/html/CREC-2005-06-09-pt1-PgS6284.htm
——————————————————————
http://liblog.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RL31868.pdf
——————————————————————
http://ballotpedia.org/David_McKeague
………………………………………………
image
________________________________________________
Why does the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, cite the United States Sixth (6th) Circuit Court of Appeals:
——————————————————————
Sixth (6th) Circuit (Cincinnati)
………………………………………………..
Eastern District of Kentucky
Western District of Kentucky
Eastern District of Michigan
Western District of Michigan
Northern District of Ohio
Southern District of Ohio
Eastern District of Tennessee
Middle District of Tennessee
Western District of Tennessee
——————————————————————
*990

United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir.1994)

The Sixth Circuit quoted at length the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991)
_________________________________________________
and why does the United States Sixth (6th) Circuit Court of Appeals cite the United States Tenth (10th) Circuit Court of Appeals:
——————————————————————
Tenth (10th) Circuit (Denver)
………………………………………………..
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming
——————————————————————
*991

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 [36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493] (1916)

Mundt, 29 F.3d at 237 (quoting Collins, 920 F.2d at 629)
_________________________________________________
and why does the Tenth (10th) Circuit Court of Appeals cite page numbers 12-19 of the Supreme Court of the United States Brushaber decision, which does not support the Tenth Circuit’s, Sixth Circuit’s, or U.S District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division’s, ORDER❓

President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Carlos F. LUCERO, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Adams State College (1961 @AdamsState) and George Washington University (1964 @GWtweets #GWU @GWLaw @GWAlumni @GWToday), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S. Dec. 24 1998 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. H. Eugene LYMAN and Arlene W. Lyman, 166 F.3d 349, 83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-354, 99-1 USTC P 50,199, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 41, No. 98-4109, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (10th Circuit) Dec. 24, 1998 Tenth Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Monroe G. McKAY,
Carlos F. LUCERO, Circuit Judges ORDER AND JUDGMENT
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Carlos F. LUCERO, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Adams State College (1961 @AdamsState) and George Washington University (1964 @GWtweets #GWU @GWLaw @GWAlumni @GWToday), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kx
——————————————————————
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKAY, and Circuit Judge Carlos F. LUCERO, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”

See

Cox,

99 F.3d 1149

(citing

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,

240 U.S. 1,

12-19,

36 S.Ct. 236,

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
………………………………………………..
* If the court is only able to cite page numbers (12-19) because nothing in the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White supports its ORDER, maybe the court should go back to law school
——————————————————————
Since 1916, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.” See Cox, 99 F.3d 1149 (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916))
_________________________________________________
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/166/166.F3d.349.98-4109.html
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, 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, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Dec. 24 1998 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. H. Eugene LYMAN and Arlene W. Lyman, 166 F.3d 349, 83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-354, 99-1 USTC P 50,199, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 41, No. 98-4109, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (10th Circuit) Dec. 24, 1998 Tenth Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Monroe G. McKAY,
Carlos F. LUCERO, Circuit Judges ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Dec. 24 1998

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
H. Eugene LYMAN and Arlene W. Lyman,

166 F.3d 349

83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-354,

99-1 USTC P 50,199,

1999 CJ C.A.R. 41

No. 98-4109

United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit
10th Circuit

Dec. 24, 1998

Tenth Circuit Judge

Stephen Hale ANDERSON,

Monroe G. McKAY,

Carlos F. LUCERO,

Circuit Judges

ORDER AND JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________
Dec. 24 1998 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. H. Eugene LYMAN and Arlene W. Lyman, 166 F.3d 349, 83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-354, 99-1 USTC P 50,199, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 41, No. 98-4109, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (10th Circuit) Dec. 24, 1998 Tenth Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Monroe G. McKAY,
Carlos F. LUCERO, Circuit Judges ORDER AND JUDGMENT
——————————————————————
………………………………………………..

——————————————————————
________________________________________________