Stanley MARCUS, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia, Honored by Federal Bar Association (@FederalBar), South Florida Chapter, with Edward B. Davis award for Service to the Federal Bench and Bar, which recognizes those who exemplify the values and actions we treasure as a legal community; which I presume means: Stating the Exact Opposite of 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), as was done by Judge Stanley Marcus and his two colleagues, Dec. 29 2014, in Irvin E. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, 14-12062, Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, wherein the court stated: “Second [for nearly a century] “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.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990),” 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”

image
Stanley MARCUS, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia, Honored by Federal Bar Association (@FederalBar), South Florida Chapter, with Edward B. Davis award for Service to the Federal Bench and Bar, which recognizes those who exemplify the values and actions we treasure as a legal community; which I presume means: Stating the Exact Opposite of 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), as was done by Judge Stanley Marcus and his two colleagues, Dec. 29 2014, in Irvin E. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, 14-12062, Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, wherein the court stated: “Second [for nearly a century] “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.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990),” 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”
_________________________________________________
Do not worry ladies, gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages – I’m sure Judge Stanley Marcus is NOT corrupt, and that he will explain why it is that he and his colleagues chose to disregard two (2) unanimous Supreme Court of the United States decisions, and instead, chose to cite a United States Tenth (10th) Circuit Appeals Court decision which claims, falsely, to cite the U.S. Supreme Court

Since when does an appellate court’s decision take precedence over unanimous United States Supreme Court decisions❓

When did the policy change to, instead of citing the Supreme Court directly, to cite an inferior United States Federal Appeals Court, inferior United States Federal District Court, or inferior United States Federal Tax Court which allegedly cites the Supreme Court of the United States❓

I await the press release, article, or public explanation by Judge Stanley Marcus, for his actions
_________________________________________________
South Florida Chapter, Newsletter Awards Application 2014.pdf
http://www.fedbar.org
——————————————————————
Jun 12, 2014 – NEWSLETTER RECOGNITION AWARDS …. Edward B. Davis award – Judge Stanley Marcus
——————————————————————
http://www.fedbar.org/Hidden-Files/2014-Newsletter-Submissions/South-Florida-Chapter/South%20Florida%20Chapter,%20Newsletter%20Awards%20Application%202014.pdf.aspx?FT=.pdf
——————————————————————
http://fba-sdfla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/s-fla-Fall13.pdf
——————————————————————
https://orgsync.com/70253/events/654148/occurrences/575617
——————————————————————
http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2013/10/ned-award-goes-to-judge-stanley-marcus.html?m=1
——————————————————————
http://stluciecriminallaw.com/blog/ned-award-goes-to-judge-stanley-marcus/
——————————————————————
http://mmason.freeshell.org/junklaw/NoMandamusReviewRight.html
………………………………………………..
https://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/
======================================
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
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal
——————————————————————
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia  (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges
_________________________________________________
Second

[for nearly a century]

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”

United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

(10th Cir. 1990)
——————————————————————
Second [for nearly a century] “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”

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)
_________________________________________________
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 4
________________________________________________
FACT: The UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that the 16th Amendment DOES NOT Provide 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] (1916)
======================================
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/
======================================
The Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States
——————————————————————
Chief Justice Edward D. White

Associate Justice Joseph McKenna

Associate Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.

Associate Justice William R. Day

Associate Justice Charles E. Hughes

Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter

Associate Justice Mahlon Pitney
_________________________________________________
Dec. 29 2014

Irvin E. Taliaferro v. United States, 14-12062 (11th Cir. 2014)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: December 29th 2014

Docket Number: 14-12062

Case: 14-12062

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

11th Circuit
Eleventh Circuit

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK

Circuit Judges
_________________________________________________
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 89-PART 2

MARCH 2, 1943, TO APRIL 5, 1943

(PAGES 1459 TO 2940)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1943
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
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))
_________________________________________________
1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
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
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

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