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❓

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