Tag Archives: attorney

Is the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, Corrupt and / or Just Inept❓

Is the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, Corrupt and / or Just Inept❓

Friday, January 2, 2015, Billy Shaun McGhee of Smith and McGhee P.C., 211 W. Main Street, Suite 1, Dothan, Alabama 36301, was Retained for $300.00 (Three-Hundred Dollars), Receipt No. 911961, to assist with the recovery of a client’s property
image
Sunday, January 18, 2015, 5:44 PM, B. Shaun McGhee’s Legal Assistant was advised via e-mail, by the client, that the parties who had the client’s property, had moved to a NEW address, and provided the NEW address
image

image

image

February 14, 2015, 9:39 AM, B. Shaun McGhee’s office was requested via e-mail, to provide the date the letter had been sent to the parties who had the client’s property
image

image

image

image
February 24, 2015

Complaint Against a Lawyer
B. Shaun McGhee
was mailed to the Alabama State Bar
Complaint Against a Lawyer

Complaint Against a Lawyer

Complaints Against a Lawyer
Complaints Against Alabama Lawyers
Complaint Against an Alabama Lawyer
“A lawyer who is accused of misconduct suffers whether or not he is found to be at fault”

UNFORTUNATELY, the ALABAMA STATE BAR, CENTER for PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION, OFFICE of the GENERAL COUNSEL, does NOT advise the general public what this SUFFERing is
Complaint Against an Alabama Lawyer

Complaint Against an Alabama Lawyer
Your complaint will receive the Alabama State Bar’s prompt attention and every attempt will be made to resolve your complaint in a manner which is fair to both you and the lawyer

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THE Alabama State Bar WILL MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE YOUR COMPLAINT IN A MANNER WHICH IS FAIR TO BOTH YOU AND THE LAWYER, there is some swampland available for sale in Louisiana

Alabama State Bar
Center for Professional Responsibility
415 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104
334-269-1515
http://www.alabar.org

February 24, 2015, around 1:30 pm, B. Shaun McGhee provided the client a copy of the letter which had been sent to the parties OLD address, after a meeting regarding an unrelated matter

The letter was dated January [NO DAY] 2015
image
It is interesting that the letter had NO DAY provided, since other letters from McGhee’s office have a complete date

March 12, 2014
(actually March 12 2015)
image
September 4, 2014
image

February 24, 2015
image
PS Form 3811 Domestic Return Receipt 7001 1140 0001 5356 0781, showed that the letter had been signed for on Thursday, January 22, 2015, 11:39 am
image

image
The United States Postal Service’s web-site’s Certified Mail Tracking Number screen showed that item 7001 1140 0001 5356 0781 had been mailed to the parties OLD address, Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 3:32 pm
image

This was three (3) days AFTER the client had advised McGhee’s office that the parties had moved to a NEW address

McGhee refused to rectify the situation by sending the letter to the NEW address
image
McGhee also did NOT provide the Certified Mail Receipt from the United States Postal Service
image
A Certified Mail Receipt looks like this
image
Or just a receipt from the USPS, showing the DAY the item was mailed
image
February 26, 2015

Alabama State Bar
Center for Professional Responsibility
Disciplinary Commission
Office of General Counsel

Mr. Billy Shaun McGhee
Attorney at Law
PO Box 1225
Dothan AL 36302-1225

Re: CSP 2015-345
Complaint

Dear Mr. McGhee

Enclosed is a copy of a complaint / letter received in this office from the above-referenced individual concerning you

Rather than opening a formal investigative file at this time, you are requested to review the enclosed and submit, in writing, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this letter, your comments concerning the enclosed complaint / letter

In your response, you may include copies of any documents which are relevant to this inquiry

Please submit the original and one copy of your written response and enclosures to this office within fourteen (14) days from the date of this letter

Robyn Bernier
Investigator / Paralegal
For the Office of the General Counsel
image
March 12, 2014
(actually March 12 2015)

B. Shaun McGhee sent
Robyn Bernier
Alabama State Bar
The Disciplinary Commission
P. O. Box 671
Montgomery, AL 36101

RE: CSP No. 2014-345
(actually CSP 2015-345)
Complaint
image
Thursday, April 2, 2015

Alabama State Bar
The Disciplinary Commission
Telephone: 334-269-1515
P.O. Box 671
Montgomery, AL 36101
Fax: 334/261-6311
Delivery Address
415 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104

CSP 2015-345
Complaint against Billy Shaun McGhee

The Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar has received the complaint that you filed against the above-referenced attorney

A copy of your complaint was forwarded to the attorney and a copy of the attorney’s response to your complaint is enclosed

Two attorneys in the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar have reviewed your complaint and the attorney’s response to the complaint

In view of the nature and content of the complaint and the enclosed response of the attorney, we will take no further action in this matter

Robyn Bernier
Investigator / Paralegal
For the Office of the General Counsel
image

There is NOT any evidence in the record, that the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, requested the Certified Mail Receipt, showing the DAY item 7001 1140 0001 5356 0781 was mailed, from B. Shaun McGhee

There is NOT any evidence in the record, that the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, requested a Receipt from the United States Postal Service, showing the DAY item 7001 1140 0001 5356 0781 was mailed, from B. Shaun McGhee

There is NOT any evidence in the record, that the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, accessed the United States Postal Service’s web-site’s Certified Mail Tracking Number screen, to see what DAY item 7001 1140 0001 5356 0781 was mailed by McGhee’s office

THE ALABAMA STATE BAR, CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, DOES NOT CARE IF YOU ADVISE AN ALABAMA ATTORNEY’s OFFICE THAT THE PARTIES THEY ARE TO SEND A LETTER TO, HAVE MOVED TO A NEW ADDRESS, AND THEY SEND THE LETTER TO THE OLD ADDRESS, AND REFUSE TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION BY MAILING THE LETTER TO THE NEW ADDRESS

Thursday, April 9, 2015 letter from client to Robyn Bernier, Alabama State Bar
Center for Professional Responsibility
Disciplinary Commission
Office of General Counsel
image
Friday, April 17, 2015

We are in receipt of your request for reconsideration of the above-referenced matter

The Alabama State Bar only has jurisdiction over violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct

Your initial complaint, the respondent attorney’s response, and your recent request were independently reviewed by two lawyers in this office

They have concluded that there appears to be no new information which warrants a formal investigation

Therefore, no further action will be taken in this matter in accordance with our earlier decision
image
May 5, 2015 letter from client to Alabama State Bar
Center for Professional Responsibility
Disciplinary Commission
Office of General Counsel

June 25, 2015

We are in receipt of your request for reconsideration of the above-referenced matter

The Alabama State Bar only has jurisdiction over violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct

Your initial complaint, the respondent attorney’s response, and your recent request were independently reviewed by two lawyers in this office

They have concluded that there appears to be no new information which warrants a formal investigation

Therefore, no further action will be taken in this matter in accordance with our earlier decision
image
December 16, 2015 letter from client to Alabama State Bar
Center for Professional Responsibility
Disciplinary Commission
Office of General Counsel
image
January 19, 2016

We are in receipt of your latest request for reconsideration of the above-referenced matter

The information you provided, your initial complaint and the attorney’s response were reviewed thoroughly and independently by two attorneys in the Office of General Counsel

While we can understand that you feel this is not a satisfactory resolution of your complaint, not every complaint constitutes a rule violation or has sufficient prosecutive merit

Your complaint was processed and investigated according to our procedures

In view of the fact that procedures were properly followed and a final determination made, there is nothing further we can do

Any other information received from you regarding this matter will be placed with your original complaints

However, no response from us will be forthcoming
image

THE ALABAMA STATE BAR, CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, does NOT have PROCEDURES in place to request that an attorney provide a Certified Mail Receipt to show the DAY the item was mailed, nor to access the USPS’ web-site’s Certified Mail Tracking Number screen and look up the DAY an item was mailed, when they are conducting a so-called “investigation”

WARNING: The Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, does NOT care if you advise an Alabama attorney’s office to make a change, and the Alabama attorney’s office ignores you, and refuses to rectify the situation

That is PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

WARNING: The Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, does NOT seem to think that if you retain an attorney to write a letter, that you, as the client, should be allowed to review that letter before it is mailed

What does the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, have in common with s Ye olde England star chamber❓

Two attorneys in the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar have reviewed your complaint and the attorney’s response to the complaint
In view of the nature and content of the complaint and the enclosed response of the attorney, we will take no further action in this matter

“Two attorneys in the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar have reviewed your complaint”

TRANSLATION: “Two NAMELESS, FACELESS, BUREAUCRATS in the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar have reviewed your complaint”

Your initial complaint, the respondent attorney’s response, and your recent request were independently reviewed by two lawyers in this office
They have concluded that there appears to be no new information which warrants a formal investigation
Therefore, no further action will be taken in this matter in accordance with our earlier decision

” . . . were independently reviewed by two lawyers in this office”

TRANSLATION: ” . . . were independently reviewed by two NAMELESS, FACELESS, BUREAUCRATS in this office”

Duplicate

The information you provided your initial complaint and the attorney’s response were reviewed thoroughly and independently by two attorneys in the Office of General Counsel

” . . . were reviewed thoroughly and independently by two attorneys in the Office of General Counsel”

TRANSLATION: ” . . . were reviewed thoroughly and independently by two NAMELESS, FACELESS, BUREAUCRATS in the Office of General Counsel”

JUDGES in ALABAMA have more “PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY” than the NAMELESS, FACELESS, BUREAUCRAT attorneys / lawyers who “independently” review complaints at the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Commission, Office of General Counsel, who might be too YELLOW-BELLIED to sign off on their “determinations,” because maybe they do NOT want the notoriety of being responsible for some of the worst decisions in Alabama State Bar history

The Supreme Court of Alabama, through the Alabama State Bar, regulates lawyer conduct in this state

The Alabama State Bar’s grievance system was established by the Supreme Court of Alabama to enforce uniform standards of professional conduct for lawyers

All lawyers who practice law in Alabama must be members of the Alabama State Bar

Alabama Supreme Court
Mr. Robert G. Esdale
Clerk of the Court
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741

The Judicial System Study Commission of Alabama
Mr. Randy Helms
Administrative Director of Courts
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741

Alabama Judicial Conference
Mr. Randy Helms
Administrative Director of Courts
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-2714

@LutherStrange

Alabama Attorney General
Luther Strange
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130

@GovernorBentley

Alabama Governor
Robert Bentley
State Capitol
600 Dexter Avenue, Room N-104
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2751

@HarriAnneSmith

Alabama Senator
Harri Anne Smith
P O Box 483
Slocomb, Alabama 36375

@SteveClouse

Alabama Representative
Steve Clouse
11 South Union Street, Suite 410-D
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2950

@AlabamaStateBar

Alabama State Bar
Mr. Keith B. Norman
Executive Director / Secretary
P. O. Box 671
Montgomery, Alabama 36101

Advertisements

Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) CORRUPTION for IDIOTS, DUMMIES, and AVERAGE AMERICANS

The Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) LIES to the Congress of the United States of America

What makes you think the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) won’t LIE to you or any entity you may work for❓

When the Internal Revenue Service (I R S) decided to question Billie Murdock of Utah about her “alleged” Federal income tax liability, she did what the Taxpayer Bill of Rights lists as your Right

She had a Transcript of the meeting made, which included gems like the Internal Revenue Agent telling her to “never-mind that,” when Billie started asking questions the agent didn’t want to answer

If an Internal Revenue Agent tells you to “never mind that” when you are asking them about documents published in the Federal Register; which is notice to the public from the United States Federal Government, which is signed by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, that is the biggest red flag, reminiscent of a matador flapping a big red cape in front of a bull
________________________________________________
I.R.S. ʟ I a R S
________________________________________________
Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) Frivolous Taxpayer IRS Liars
2.

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”
——————————————————————
The SUPREME COURT has

RECOGNIZED that the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX
Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) Frivolous Taxpayer IRS Liars
7. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens

Numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws are valid as applied
——————————————————————
… COURTS haveRECOGNIZED that the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT INCOME TAX
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
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:
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the Amendment:

‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration’

(ratified February 3, 1913)
_________________________________________________
[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, 10]

We are of opinion, however

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

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

12 – 19

36 S.Ct. 236

239-42

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/
_________________________________________________
The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LIE
………………………………………………..
the

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

authorizes a

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX …”
——————————————————————
The Unanimous U.S. SUPREME COURT TRUTH
………………………………………………..
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]
——————————————————————
After the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States decided the two (2) cases regarding the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment; the “income tax amendment”:
——————————————————————
U.S. Supreme Court
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.
(Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.)
Argued October 14 and 15 1915
240 U.S. 1
12 – 19
36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
239-42
60 L.Ed. 493
Decided January 24, 1916
(1916)
——————————————————————
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
240 U.S. 103
36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed. 546
No. 359
Decided February 21, 1916
(1916)
——————————————————————
Treasury Decision 2131 was approved, March 30, 1916, and held to be effective as of January 1, 1916
_________________________________________________
United States Taxpayers:
Who are They❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-Ih
_________________________________________________
IRS PRA Form 2555 OMB 1545-0067
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-Ji
_________________________________________________
Treasury Decision (T. D. 2313) Income Tax
53

(T. D. 2313)

Income tax
——————————————————————
INCOME TAX
——————————————————————
Taxability of interest from bonds and dividends on stock of domestic corporations owned by nonresident aliens, and the liabilities of nonresident aliens under section 2 of the act of October 3, 1913
——————————————————————
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS owned by NONRESIDENT ALIENS, and the LIABILITIES of NONRESIDENT ALIENS
——————————————————————
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Washington, D. C., March 21, 1916

To collectors of internal revenue:

Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby ordered that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913
——————————————————————
decision of the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES in the case of BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., decided JANUARY 24, 1916 … INCOME … to NONRESIDENT ALIENS … from DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS is subject to the INCOME TAX …
——————————————————————
Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income
——————————————————————
NONRESIDENT ALIENS … are LIABLE for the … TAX upon … INCOME
——————————————————————
“from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States,”
computed on the basis prescribed in the law”
——————————————————————
… all PROPERTY owned … every BUSINESS, TRADE, or PROFESSION carried on in the UNITED STATES …
——————————————————————
The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on
Treasury Decision (T. D. 2313) Income Tax page 54
54
——————————————————————
… NONRESIDENT ALIENS … PROPERTY owned or BUSINESS carried on within the UNITED STATES
——————————————————————
within the United States, shall make a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals
——————————————————————
shall make a … RETURN of … INCOME … on FORM 1040 … and … pay … TAX … upon … INCOME received … in behalf of … NONRESIDENT ALIEN …
——————————————————————
The person, firm, company, copartnership, corporation, joint stock company, or association, and insurance company in the United States, citizen or resident alien, in whatever capacity acting, having the control, receipt, disposal, or payment of fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains, profits, and income of whatever kind, to a nonresident alien, under any contract, or otherwise, which payment shall represent income of a nonresident alien from the exercise of any trade or profession within the United States, shall deduct and withhold from such annual or periodic gains, profits, and income, regardless of amount or otherwise, and pay to the officer of the United States Government authorized to receive the same such sum as will be sufficient to pay the normal tax of 1 per cent imposed by law, an shall make an annual return on Form 1042
——————————————————————
… in … UNITED STATES, CITIZEN or RESIDENT ALIEN … having … control … of … INCOME of … NONRESIDENT ALIEN from … any TRADE or PROFESSION within the UNITED STATES, shall deduct and WITHHOLD … INCOME… and pay to the OFFICER of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT … to pay the … TAX …
——————————————————————
The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens from corporate obligations and shall be returned and paid to the Government by debtor corporations and withholding agents as in the case of citizens and resident aliens, but without benefit of the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the law
——————————————————————
The … TAX … WITHHELD at the SOURCE from INCOME … to NONRESIDENT ALIENS … shall be … paid to the GOVERNMENT by … WITHHOLDING AGENTS as in the case of CITIZENS and RESIDENT ALIENS …
——————————————————————
Form 1008, revised, claiming the benefit of such deductions as may be applicable to income arising within the United States and for refund of excess tax withheld, as provided by paragraphs B and P of the income-tax laws, may be filed by nonresident aliens, their agents or representatives, with the debtor corporation, withholding agent, or collector of internal revenue for the district in which the withholding return is required to be made
——————————————————————
… INCOME … within the UNITED STATES and … refund of excess TAX WITHHELD as provided by … the INCOME-TAX LAWS may be filed by NONRESIDENT ALIENS … with the WITHHOLDING AGENT, or COLLECTOR of INTERNAL REVENUE for the DISTRICT in which the WITHHOLDING RETURN is required to be made
——————————————————————
That part of paragraph E of the law which provides that

“if such person * * * is absent from the United States, * * * the return and application may be made for him or her by the person required to withhold and pay the tax * * *” is held to be applicable to the return and application on Form 1008, revised, of nonresident aliens
——————————————————————
… the LAW … provides that

“if such PERSON * * * is absent from the UNITED STATES, * * * the RETURNmay be madeby the PERSON required to WITHHOLD and pay the TAXof NONRESIDENT ALIENS
——————————————————————
A fiduciary acting in the capacity of trustee, executor, or administrator, when there is only one beneficiary and that beneficiary a nonresident alien, shall render a return on Form 1040, revised; but when there are two or more beneficiaries, one or all of whom are nonresident aliens, the fiduciary shall render a return on Form 1041, revised, and a personal return on Form 1040, revised, for each nonresident alien beneficiary
——————————————————————
… a NONRESIDENT ALIEN, shall render a return on FORM 1040 …

… NONRESIDENT ALIENS, … shall render a personal return on FORM 1040 … for each NONRESIDENT ALIEN …
——————————————————————
The liability, under the provisions of the law, to render personal returns, on or before March 1 next succeeding the tax year, of annual
Treasury Decision (T. D. 2313) Income Tax page 55
55

net income accrued to them from sources within the United States during the preceding calendar year attaches to nonresident aliens as in the case of returns required from citizens and resident aliens
——————————————————————
The LIABILITY, under the provisions of the LAW, to render personal returns, … of … INCOME … from SOURCES WITHIN the UNITED STATES … attaches to NONRESIDENT ALIENS as in the case of returns required from CITIZENS and RESIDENT ALIENS
——————————————————————
Therefore, a return on Form 1040, revised, is required except in cases where the total tax liability has been or is to be satisfied at the source by withholding or has been or is to be satisfied by personal return on Form 1040, revised, rendered in their behalf
——————————————————————
… a return on FORM 1040, … is required except in cases where the total TAX LIABILITY … is satisfied at the source by WITHHOLDING … or is … satisfied by personal return on FORM 1040 …
——————————————————————
Returns should be rendered to the collector of internal revenue for the district in which a nonresident alien carries on his principal business within the United States or, in the absence of a principal business within the United States and in all cases of doubt, to the collector of internal revenue at Baltimore, Md., in whose district Washington is situated
——————————————————————
Returns should be rendered to the COLLECTOR of INTERNAL REVENUE for the DISTRICT in which a NONRESIDENT ALIEN carries on his principal BUSINESS WITHIN the UNITED STATES …
——————————————————————
Nonresident aliens are held to be subject to the liabilities and requirements of all administrative, special, and general provisions of law in relation to the assessment, remission, collection, and refund of the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913, and collectors of internal revenue will make collection of the tax by distraint, garnishment, execution, or other appropriate process provided by law
——————————————————————
NONRESIDENT ALIENS are … subject to the LIABILITIES … of LAW in relation to … the INCOME TAX …
——————————————————————
. . .

This decision will be held effective as of January 1, 1916

W. H. Osborn,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Approved, March 30, 1916:
Byron R. Newton,
Acting Secretary of the Treasury
_________________________________________________
From Treasury Decision 2131 we know the UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS are:
——————————————————————
1. CITIZEN TAXPAYERS RESIDING or DOING BUSINESS ABROAD
——————————————————————
2. FOREIGN TAXPAYERS DERIVING INCOME from SOURCES WITHIN the UNITED STATES
——————————————————————
3. TAXPAYERS who are REQUIRED to WITHHOLD TAX on INCOME FLOWING ABROAD to NONRESIDENT ALIENS and FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
——————————————————————
4. EMPLOYEES of the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
——————————————————————
5. RESIDENT ALIENS
——————————————————————
and we know there are the:
——————————————————————
6. SOCIAL SECURITY TAXPAYERS
——————————————————————
and
——————————————————————
7. ObamaCare TAXPAYERS
——————————————————————
Employers like to give you a United States Federal Government “Withholding Certificate” to fill out

Why would you fill out a W-4❓

Are you a United States Federal Government Taxpayer❓

What if an Employer LIES to you and tells you that they cannot hire you unless you fill out a “Withholding Certificate”❓

Based on what❓

If you tell an Employer you are not a “Taxpayer” required to fill out a “Withholding Certificate”

the Internal Revenue Service might tell your Employer to Withhold anyway

Based on what❓
Internal Revenue Service United States Federal Government Taxpayer
The Internal Revenue Service may Levy on you “allegedly” based on Internal Revenue Code Section
6331

Based on what❓
Internal Revenue Code section 6331 Levy Congress
E. CLAY SHAW, JR.
22ND DISTRICT, FLORIDA
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0922

January 24, 2005

Mr. Gary A. Fennell
Boca Raton, Florida 33431-5926

Dear Mr. Fennell:

Thank you for contacting me with a question regarding your troubles with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

While responding as best I can, please understand that I am not giving any legal advice

I would strongly advise you to seek counsel on this matter

U.S. Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 64, Subchapter D Part II, Section 6331 (a) states:

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official

If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section

This particular provision does not appear to extend to private sector employees
——————————————————————
This particular provision DOES NOT APPEAR to EXTEND to PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES
——————————————————————
If a form was given to an employer that omitted section (a), this form could be considered misleading
——————————————————————
If a form was given to an EMPLOYER that OMITTED section (a), this form could be considered MISLEADING
——————————————————————
I hope that this is helpful to you

Again you may wish to seek help from an attorney or tax professional

Sincerely

E. Clay Shaw, Jr.

Member of Congress

ECS:cd
_________________________________________________
Which class of “TAXPAYER” does this apply to❓
——————————————————————
(EMPLOYEES of the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)

any OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, or ELECTED OFFICIAL, of the UNITED STATES, the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA, or any AGENCY or INSTRUMENTALITY of the UNITED STATES or the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA
——————————————————————
NOTE: The U.S. Congress described in the LAW how

“LEVY MAY BE MADE”

Congress did NOT describe how

“LEVY MAY BE MADE”

on any PERSONS other than those specifically named
_________________________________________________
From Internal Revenue Code section 6331 we know the UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS are:

——————————————————————
1. CITIZEN TAXPAYERS RESIDING or DOING BUSINESS ABROAD
——————————————————————
2. FOREIGN TAXPAYERS DERIVING INCOME from SOURCES WITHIN the UNITED STATES
——————————————————————
3. TAXPAYERS who are REQUIRED to WITHHOLD TAX on INCOME FLOWING ABROAD to NONRESIDENT ALIENS and FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
——————————————————————
4. (EMPLOYEES of the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)

any OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, or ELECTED OFFICIAL, of the UNITED STATES, the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA, or any AGENCY or INSTRUMENTALITY of the UNITED STATES or the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA
——————————————————————
5. RESIDENT ALIENS
——————————————————————
and we know there are the:
——————————————————————
6. SOCIAL SECURITY TAXPAYERS
——————————————————————
and
——————————————————————
7. ObamaCare TAXPAYERS
_________________________________________________
This is exactly the kind of LIE the Internal Revenue Service has engaged in:
——————————————————————
If a form was given to an EMPLOYER that OMITTED section (a), this form could be considered MISLEADING
——————————————————————
The Internal Revenue Service has also engaged in sending a letter that indicates they have not received a response from you, even though you have a Certified Mail Receipt from the United States Postal Service, showing that they did receive your response

The Internal Revenue Service has also told an “alleged Taxpayer” that they want to meet and go over your books and records, and when the “alleged Taxpayer” agrees to the meeting and replies that as allowed in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, they will bring a recorder to record the meeting, and then on the day of the meeting when the “alleged Taxpayer” shows up at the I.R.S. Office for the meeting, the IRS will call off the meeting

These are some of the tactics the IRS liars have used
——————————————————————
SOCIAL SECURITY straight from the COURT’s MOUTH
——————————————————————
What is

● U.S. citizenship

and who is a

● U.S. citizen ?
—————————————————————
Are you a

● U.S. citizen

or a

● citizen of the United States

(a citizen of one of the several States,

the States of the Union,

the United States of America) ?
image
The Social Security Administration

seems to think that a 12-year-old

knows the difference between a

● U.S. citizen

and

● a citizen of the United States
image● United States citizen defined
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/united-states-citizen/
—————————————————————
● citizen of the United States defined
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/citizen-of-the-united-states/
image
A

● U.S. citizen

is a

Federalcitizen
——————————————————————
Those born in the District of Columbia, federal territories (e.g. Puerto Rico Guam etc.), and federal enclaves (e.g. American Indian reservations military bases etc.)
——————————————————————
After the Emancipation Proclamation; by Abraham Lincoln and the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it was necessary since those who were Emancipated were NOT considered to be “citizens

They were considered to be “property” before the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
—————————————————————–
AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress

June 13, 1866

Ratified July 9, 1868

Section 1.

All persons

born

or

naturalized

in the United States,

and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

are citizens of the United States

and

of the State wherein they reside

No State shall

make

or

enforce

any law which shall abridge the

privileges

or

immunities

of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive

any person

of

life,

liberty,

or

property,

without due process of law;

nor deny to

any person

within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws
image● a citizen of the United States

is one who was born in one of

the several States

(the States of the Union

the United States of America)

and were therefor,

● a citizen of a State

as well as

● a citizen of the United States
image
Does a

● U.S. citizen

have “rights❓
………………………………………………..
● a citizen of the United States

has

rights

enumerated in the

Bill of Rights

and the

Constitution
imageimageimageimageimageimageimage
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
——————————————————————
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution
_____________________________________________
What is a

Social Security Number

used for ?
—————————————————————–
It’s used by the

● Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

as a

● Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
_____________________________________________
What was the

Social Security Act

for ?
imageAN ACT

to provide for the

general welfare

by

establishing a system

of

Federal old-age benefits,

and by

● enabling the several States
_____________________________________________
the SEVERAL STATES
image
Who did the

Social Security Act

apply to ?
—————————————————————–
The Social Security Act,

Pub.L. 74–271,

49 Stat. 620,

enacted August 14, 1935,

now codified as

42 U.S.C. ch. 7
—————————————————————–
WHY IS A

U.S. CITIZEN

INCLUDED

IN THE DEFINITION OF

CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

33 UNITED STATES CODE

but NOT

42 U.S.C. Chapter 7 ?
_____________________________________________
U.S. Code › Title 33 › Chapter 29 › § 1502
—————————————————————
TITLE 33 – NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
——————————————————————
33 U.S. Code § 1502 – Definitions
_____________________________________________
Are you a

US citizen

or

citizen of the United States ?
imageTITLE XI- GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEFINITIONS SECTION 1101. (a) When used in this Act-

(1) The term

State

(except when used in section 531)

INCLUDES

Alaska,

Hawaii,

and

the District of Columbia
—————————————————————–
What is the

Legal definition

of the term

includes?
—————————————————————–
The legal definition of the term

INCLUDE

is:
——————————————————————
INCLUDE(S) (verb)

absorb,

adscribere,

be composed of,

be formed of,

be made up of,

begird,

boast,

bound,

bracket,

circumscribe,

classify,

close in,

combine,

compass,

comprehend,

comprehendere,

consist of,

contain,

cover,

embody,

embrace,

encircle,

engird,

envelop,

girdle,

hold,

incorporate,

involve,

merge,

put a barrier around,

span,

subsume,

surround,

take in,

unify,

unite

The less is always included in the greater
——————————————————————
THE LESS is ALWAYS INCLUDED IN the GREATER
——————————————————————
The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another
——————————————————————
THE INCLUSION of ONE THING IS the EXCLUSION of ANOTHER
——————————————————————
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=include
——————————————————————
This MEANS that the term

INCLUDES

ONLY “includes” the terms that come AFTER the term

INCLUDES
_____________________________________________
Includes defined
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/includes/
_____________________________________________
What is the

Legal definition

of the term

State?
_____________________________________________
State(s) defined
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/states/
_____________________________________________
This

MEANS

that the

definition

would be read as:
—————————————————————–
(1) The term

State

(except when used in section 531)

MEANS

areas under Federal legislative jurisdiction,

Alaska,

Hawaii,

and

the District of Columbia
imageTITLE XI- GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEFINITIONS SECTION 1101. (a) When used in this Act-

(2) The term

United States

when used in a geographical sense

MEANS

the States,

Alaska,

Hawaii,

and

the District of Columbia

(At the time,

Alaska

and

Hawaii

were

NOT

part of

the “several States”)
—————————————————————–
What is the

Legal definition

of the term

United States?
_____________________________________________
United States defined
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/united-states/
_____________________________________________
This

MEANS

that the

definition

would be read as:
—————————————————————–
(2) The term

United States

when used in a geographical sense

MEANS

areas under Federal legislative jurisdiction,

Alaska,

Hawaii,

and

the District of Columbia
image
The

Federal United States

has the power to legislate for

areas

as mentioned above

(its jurisdiction),

just as any of

the several States

has the power to legislate re

persons,

places,

and

things

within the jurisdiction of the State
_________________________________________________
if you are

a citizen of the United States

residing

in one of

the several States,

you are considered as a

non-resident alien

as concerns the

other 49 States of the Union

The same applies to the

Federal United States

If you are

a citizen of the United States

residing

in one of

the several States

you are considered as a

non-resident alien

as concerns the

Federal United States

However, because citizens of the United States can be employees of the United States (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, etc.), Americans are NOT considered to be non-residents for purposes of the United States Federal Taxation scheme

Of course, if you

voluntarily

sign up for

Social Security,

the

United States Federal Government

is going to take it as meaning that you want to be treated as a

(Federal) United States citizen

instead of

a citizen of the United States

(a citizen of one of the several States)
_____________________________________________
Where does the

Social Security (FICA) Taxes

go ?
_________________________________________________
Helvering v. Davis,

301 U.S. 619

(1937),

“The proceeds of both

[employee and employer]

taxes

are to be paid into the

Treasury

like

internal-revenue taxes

generally, and are

not earmarked in any way

That is, the

Social Security Tax

was

constitutional

as a mere exercise of

Congress‘s general taxation powers
—————————————————————
8. Title II of the

Social Security Act

provides for

Federal OldAge Benefits
image
It creates an

OldAge Reserve Account

in the

Treasury

and authorizes future appropriations to provide for the required old-age payments,

but,

in itself,

neither appropriates money

nor brings any money into the Treasury
image
The proceeds of both

taxes

are to be paid into the

Treasury

like

internal revenue taxes

generally, and

are not earmarked in any way
imageimage
The first section of this title creates an

account

in the

United States Treasury

to be known as the

OldAge

Page 301 U. S. 636

Reserve Account

§ 201

No present appropriation, however, is made to that account
image
The argument for petitioners is that the

tax moneys

are not earmarked,

and that

Congress

is at liberty to spend them as it will
imageSOCIAL SECURITY (FICA) TAXES DID NOT GO INTO A TRUST FUND FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

THEY WENT PAID INTO THE TREASURY LIKE INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES AND WERE NOT EARMARKED IN ANY WAY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

SO THEY COULD BE USED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIAL SECURITY
—————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/619/case.html
—————————————————————
http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
_____________________________________________
Did you fill out a

Social Security Application

in the past because:

1. YOU WERE TOLD TO, or

2. YOU WERE TOLD YOU HAD TO, or

3. YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD TO, or

4. YOU WERE TOLD YOU COULD NOT BE HIRED WITHOUT a SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ?

DID YOU CONSULT with an ATTORNEY / LAWYER BEFORE YOU DID ?
_____________________________________________
WHY DOES THE FORM NOT DEFINE

U.S. citizen?
_____________________________________________
Did you know what was going to happen if you provided the

Social Security Number

to:

1. An employer, or

2. A bank, or

3. Others ?

Did you know that if you provided the

Social Security Number

to an employer, that

1. Social Security Taxes (FICA)

would be withheld from your pay ?

2. Medicare Taxes

would be withheld from your pay ?

3. Federal Income Taxes

would be withheld from your pay ?

If you did

NOT

know all of the above, the

Supreme Court of the United States

(SCOTUS)

said:
imageBrady v. U.S.

397 U.S. 742, at page 748

(1970)

Waivers of constitutional rights,

not only must be voluntary

but they must be knowing,

intelligent acts

done with sufficient awareness

of the relevant circumstances

and likely consequences
image
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=397&invol=742
——————————————————————
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/742/
image
Why does the

United States Government

want parents to obtain a

Social Security Number (SSN)

for their kids ?
_____________________________________________
Please contact a competent attorney / lawyer for a legal opinion if you do not know
imageSocial Security
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/social-security/
_____________________________________________

—————————————————————–
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=68.
_____________________________________________

—————————————————————–
http://www.legisworks.org/congress/74/publaw-271.pdf
_____________________________________________
Social Security Act Title I
P.L. 74-271
, approved August 14, 1935, 49 Stat. 620

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

(As Amended Through January 1, 2013)
—————————————————————–
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title00/0000.htm
_____________________________________________
Constitutional Background
to the Social Security Act of 1935

by Eduard A. Lopez
—————————————————————–
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v50n1/v50n1p5.pdf
_____________________________________________
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT [P.L. 74–271, approved August 14, 1935, 49 Stat. 620.]
—————————————————————–
http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/SSA_CMD.pdf
_____________________________________________
Articles
—————————————————————–
http://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/about/image

Police State OREGON (U.S.A.)

Police State OREGON (U.S.A.) What's Legal Educate Before You Recreate
EDUCATE
before you RECREATE
Because you’re a Tax SLAVE
in a POLICE STATE
Photography Is Not A Crime PINAC
LESSON: Don’t get caught photographing in Police State OREGON (U.S.A.) because Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey is afraid you might catch Police State OREGON ‘Rodney Kinging’ someone, and then how will the Talking Heads of the Lame Main Stream Media; controlled by six (6) mega-corporations, be able to continue their propaganda that 99% of the Police State doesn’t break the Law❓

SARCASM . . . deal with it
Photography Is Not A Crime PINAC
Oregon Man Arrested for Recording Militarized Police Raid in Neighborhood
………………………………………………..
Photography Is Not a Crime
@PINACnews
Carlos Miller
@CarlosMiller
9/8/2014 September 8, 2014
——————————————————————
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/09/08/oregon-man-arrested-recording-militarized-police-raid-neighborhood/
Photography Is Not A Crime PINAC
Man Was Recording ‘Militarized’ SWAT Raid When Things Took a Sudden Turn: ‘At First I Was Scared to Post This Video…’
………………………………………………..
The Blaze
@TheBlaze
@TheBlazeNow
Jason Howerton
@Jason_Howerton
9/8/2014 September 8, 2014
——————————————————————
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/08/man-was-recording-militarized-swat-raid-when-things-took-a-sudden-turn-at-first-i-was-scared-to-post-this-video/
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
image

Case 2

image
THE SECRET LIES OF THE FBI

Pg. 65

Portland Oregon

3/11/2004

attorney
Brandon Mayfield

Michele Longo Eder

4/7/2005 April 7, 2005
Dan Eggen
Washington Post
@WashingtonPost
________________________________________________
Flawed FBI Probe Of Bombing Used A Secret – Washington Post
Washington Post › National Security
Conyers Seeks Wider Inquiry
By
Dan Eggen
Washington Post
Staff Writer Thursday,
April 7, 2005
; Page A03
——————————————————————
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32447-2005Apr6.html
________________________________________________
In Oregon the selection of a federal judge to try a newly filed case is made randomly by the court clerk’s computer

Judge Ann Aiken selected

Suddenly Judge Aiken was taken off the case by order of the chief judge

A short time later, attorney Elden Rosenthal, by mere chance, met Judge Aiken at a joint meeting of the bar and bench

Attorney Rosenthal told Judge Aiken he was sorry she was disqualified to sit on the case

Judge Aiken told Elden she’d been quite willing to sit on the case, but she’d been removed by the chief judge without any reason offered

Judge Aiken said this was happening frequently to her and another woman judge

Some of the senior federal judges in the district had apparently decided to secretly circumvent the random selection of the computer, leaving lawyers who practice before them believing that the random selection of judges was at work as usual

The chief judge, assigned the case to another senior judge in the circuit

That senior judge apparently wasn’t overly delighted to see attorney Gerry Spence of Wyoming, in Oregon federal court

That senior judge told a group of lawyers and judges at a judicial function that lawyer Gerry Spence would never be able to get away with the antics and tactics he pulled on Judge Haas in the Sandy Jones murder case

Judge Harl Haas, who sat on the Sandy Jones case, happened to be present when that senior judge made those public remarks

Judge Haas was offended and immediately advised attorney Spence of that senior judge’s prejudicial remarks

The above mentioned court rule providing for the random assignment of cases to judges protects both judges and litigants from any suggestion of impropriety

A motion was filed that set forth a summary of the facts and demanded the case be returned to Judge Aiken, the lawfully selected judge in the case

The POWERS that be decided that was a good idea, to reassign Judge Aiken to the case before someone started asking questions
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence Case 3 KILL HIM - DON'T HELP HIM

Case 3

image
KILL HIM – DON’T TOUCH HIM

Pg. 91

City of Sandy Oregon

police officer
William Bergin

Clackamas County

deputy sheriff
David Willard

Fouad Kaady
9/8/2005
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
News and case results – Part 5 – Spence Law Firm
http://www.spencelawyers.com
Jan 11, 2011 – June 1, 2010 | Oregon, Portland. Oregon Wrongful Death Civil Rights Case Settled. Gerry Spence
——————————————————————
http://www.spencelawyers.com/news-results/page/5/
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
Oregon Wrongful Death Civil Rights Case Settled | Spence Law Firm
http://www.spencelawyers.com › 2010/06/01
Jun 1, 2010 – City of Sandy Police Department in Sandy, Oregon, found Fouad Kaady sitting cross-legged, silent
——————————————————————
http://www.spencelawyers.com/2010/06/01/oregon-wrongful-death-civil-rights-case-settled/
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
Fouad Kaady family attorney issues statement – OregonLive.com
OregonLive.com
Mar 16, 2010 – Kent Spence of The Spence Law Firm in Jackson, Wyo., released a statement today regarding a $1
——————————————————————
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2010/03/fouad_kaady_family_attorney_is.html
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
Clackamas County to pay $1 million in Fouad Kaady shooting death
OregonLive.com
Mar 15, 2010 – Rick Bella | The Oregonian/OregonLive … 8, 2005, shooting of Fouad Kaady began with a bizarre
——————————————————————
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2010/03/clackamas_county_settles_for_1.html
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
Judge rules Fouad Kaady trial can proceed as planned | OregonLive
OregonLive.com › blog
Nov 26, 2008 – What happened: A federal judge’s ruling Wednesday paved the way for a trial in the case of a Portland
——————————————————————
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/judge_rules_fouaad_kaady_trial.html
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
What Happened To Fouad Kaady
fkaady.blogspot.com
Feb 6, 2008 – The family of Fouad Kaady, 27, has hired high-profile, flamboyant defense attorney Gerry Spence of Wyoming to argue the lawsuit
38970 Proctor Blvd., Sandy, Oregon 97055
——————————————————————
http://fkaady.blogspot.com/?m=1
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
Fouad Kaady | Mental Health Association of Portland
http://www.mentalhealthportland.org
28 Seconds : The Killing of Fouad Kaady… Portland, and the equally tragic case of 27-year-old Fouad Kaady
Oregon State Senate Bill 111, passed in 2007, in part requires each Oregon county
——————————————————————
http://www.mentalhealthportland.org/tag/fouad-kaady/

http://www.mentalhealthportland.org/tag/fouad-kaady/page/2/
Police State How America's Cops Get Away With Murder Gerry Spence
The Fouad Kaady files – Oregon Local News – Pamplin Media Group
Portland Tribune
Aug 18, 2006 – Story surrounding Fouad Kaady shooting materializes with phonebook-size stack of files
——————————————————————
http://portlandtribune.com/component/content/article?id=101388
________________________________________________
Gerry Spence | Just another WordPress site
http://www.gerryspence.com
Lawyer and author of
“How to Argue and Win Every Time”
and
“With Justice for None”
Profile, publications and articles
——————————————————————
http://www.gerryspence.com/
________________________________________________

——————————————————————
https://gerryspence.wordpress.com/
________________________________________________
======================================

Lois G. Lerner e-mailed confidential taxpayer information (February 3, 2010 11:25 AM [IRSR 123142]) to William Powers, Attorney, Federal Election Commission, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103

Lois G. Lerner

2/3/2010

pg. 34
………………………………………………..

——————————————————————
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lerner-Report1.pdf
________________________________________________

Carter Hull (July 2010) became aware of the IRS’s practice of targeting “Tea Party cases” and began to assist in crafting and implementing that policy was supervised in this process by his manager, Steven Grodnitzky

71.
Carter Hull
113.
July 2010
became aware of the IRS’s practice of targeting “Tea Party cases” and began to assist in crafting and implementing that policy
was supervised in this process by his manager, Steven Grodnitzky

Carter Hull
Misfired 2010 email alerted more IRS officials to Tea Party scrutiny
Jun 7, 2013 – The transcripts show that in July 2010, Elizabeth Hofacre, an IRS official in Cincinnati who was coordinating
was corresponding with Washington-based IRS tax attorney Carter Hull
——————————————————————
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95605X20130607
Carter Hull
[PDF] Carter Hull – Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Jul 18, 2013 – July 18, 2013
As of the spring of 2010, I was employed by the IRS as a tax law specialist in Exempt
——————————————————————
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hull-Testimony-Final.pdf
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
IRS chief counsel’s office involved in targeting controversy – The Washington Post
By Josh Hicks
July 17, 2013
IRS lawyer Carter Hull said his superiors told him that the chief counsel’s
——————————————————————
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/17/irs-chief-counsel-involved-in-targeting-controversy/
Carter Hull
IRS Officials Knew in 2010 That Pro-Life Groups Were Targeted
Jun 7, 2013 – The transcripts show that in July 2010, Elizabeth Hofacre, an IRS official in Cincinnati who was coordinating
was corresponding with Washington-based IRS tax attorney Carter Hull
——————————————————————
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/07/irs-officials-knew-in-2010-that-pro-life-groups-were-targeted/
Carter Hull
Reuters: IRS officials in Washington knew of targeting in July 2010
Jun 7, 2013 – The transcripts show that in July 2010, Elizabeth Hofacre, an IRS official
——————————————————————
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/07/reuters-irs-officials-in-washington-knew-of-targeting-in-july-2010/
Carter Hull
Unsolved Mysteries: IRS Edition | GOP
Jun 10, 2013 – In July 2010, Cincinnati Official Elizabeth Hofacre Accidently Sent An Email
IRS tax-exempt unit, was corresponding with Washington-based IRS tax attorney Carter Hull
——————————————————————
https://www.gop.com/unsolved-mysteries-irs-edition/
________________________________________________
IRS lawyer says scandal was overseen by D.C., names names
Jul 17, 2013 – Top IRS officials in Washington, D.C. planned and oversaw the agency’s improper targeting
——————————————————————
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/irs-lawyer-says-scandal-was-overseen-by-d-c-names-names/
________________________________________________
Misfired email tipped off DC officials to IRS scandal in 2010, earlier
Jun 7, 2013 – Transcripts from interviews held with IRS employees in Cincinnati show that managers
IRS official Elizabeth Hofacre was in communication with D.C.-based attorney Carter Hull
——————————————————————
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/07/irs-email-shows-dc-officials-knew-about-tea-party-scandal-in-2010-not-2011.html
________________________________________________
Is e-mail a ‘Smoking Gun’ in IRS Scandal?
Sep 22, 2015 – an IRS official in Cincinnati, was corresponding with IRS tax attorney Carter Hull in July 2010
——————————————————————
http://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/is-e-mail-a-smoking-gun-in-irs-scandal
________________________________________________
REPORT: 2010 email alerted IRS officials in Washington of targeting
Jun 7, 2013 – The transcripts show that in July 2010, Elizabeth Hofacre, an IRS official in Cincinnati who was coordinating was corresponding with Washington-based IRS tax attorney Carter Hull
——————————————————————
http://www.teaparty.org/report-dc-officials-knew-in-2010-25127/
======================================
Linchpins of Liberty v. United States
Case 1:13-cv-00777
October 18, 2013
——————————————————————
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/second-amended-complaint-filed-redacted.pdf
======================================
I.R.S. ʟ I a R S
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-v1
——————————————————————
UNDEMOCRATIC
How Unelected, Unaccountable Bureaucrats are Stealing Your Liberty and Freedom
======================================
Why is the Internal Revenue Service Corrupt❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-sT
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

Holly Paz, Acting Manager, EO Technical Unit (Exempt Organizations) Acting Director, Office of Rulings and Agreements, Internal Revenue Service (#IRS @IRSnews) in March 2010, and possibly earlier, became aware of the existence and application of the I.R.S. targeting scheme and requested that certain applications be transferred to the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Washington, D.C.

Holly Paz

68.
Holly Paz
National Office of the IRS
Washington, D.C.
93.
March 2010
In March, and possibly earlier, Paz became aware of the existence and application of the targeting scheme and requested that certain applications be transferred to the National Office of the IRS in Washington, D.C.
Holly Paz

Holly Paz
What did Holly Paz tell IRS investigators?
The Washington Post
The (IRS) building stands in Washington, D.C., U.S.
Jun 17, 2013
Internal Revenue Service
Internal Revenue
——————————————————————
________________________________________________
Holly Paz, IRS Supervisor, Admits Scrutinizing Applications From
WASHINGTON — An Internal Revenue Service supervisor in Washington says she was personally
Jun 16, 2013
——————————————————————
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3451684
________________________________________________
BREAKING: Top IRS supervisor Holly Paz admits she targeted the
investmentwatchblog.com
Holly Paz, the director of rulings and agreements
Jun 16, 2013
Internal Revenue Service’s
——————————————————————
http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-top-irs-supervisor-holly-paz-admits-she-targeted-the-tea-party/
________________________________________________
Attorney for IRS agent: Holly Paz now on administrative leave http://www.examiner.com
Roel Campos, the Washington lawyer for agent Holly Paz
Jun 16, 2013
Internal Revenue Service
——————————————————————
http://www.examiner.com/article/attorney-for-irs-agent-holly-paz-now-on-administrative-leave
________________________________________________
First Head to Roll? New Report Claims Top IRS Official Fired, Has
(ABC). An official at the center of the agency’s political targeting
Jun 14, 2013
Holly Paz
Internal Revenue Service
——————————————————————
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/14/first-head-to-roll-new-report-claims-top-irs-official-fired-has-dropped-off-the-edge-of-the-world/
________________________________________________
Did the IRS Fire Holly Paz?
National Review Online
ORIGINAL POST: An IRS source says that the Internal Revenue Service has fired Holly Paz
Jun 13, 2013
——————————————————————
http://www.nationalreview.com/doubleclick/div-gpt-ad-top.php
________________________________________________
IRS Replaces Official Who Sat in on IG Interviews of Employees
On Monday, the (IRS) circulated an internal memorandum announcing that Holly Paz–the Obama donor-turned-IRS director of Tax Exempt Organizations
Jun 11, 2013
Internal Revenue Service
——————————————————————
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/06/11/irs-replaces-holly-paz/
Holly Paz
Holly Paz
› bios › Paz
http://www.tax.gov
Holly Paz, Manager Exempt Organizations Guidance
Taxpayer Advocate Service, an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service that helps taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS
——————————————————————
http://www.tax.gov/StartingOffRight501c3/bios/Paz.html
Holly Paz
EO Update
May 16, 2012 – IRS.gov
Internal Revenue Service (.gov)
Holly Paz named Director, EO R&A 3.
Holly Paz was formally named as Director of Exempt Organizations (EO)
May 16, 2012
Internal Revenue Service
——————————————————————
https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/EO-Update-May-16,-2012
________________________________________________
======================================
Linchpins of Liberty v. United States
Case 1:13-cv-00777
October 18, 2013
——————————————————————
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/second-amended-complaint-filed-redacted.pdf
======================================
I.R.S. ʟ I a R S
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-v1
——————————————————————
UNDEMOCRATIC
How Unelected, Unaccountable Bureaucrats are Stealing Your Liberty and Freedom
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

$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

$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
_________________________________
________
$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

Don’t just tell us about your pet theory — nobody cares — get out and win a case or shut up!

Number of takers so far: 0
_________________________________
________
http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm
_________________________________
________
Why would anyone need to prove what has already been proven at the District Court level in 1993
_________________________________
________
Case Number CR-1-03-91

U.S. v. Lloyd Long

United States District Court

Eastern District of Tennessee

October 15 1993

Nationally prominent attorney

Lowell Beacraft

(of Huntsville Alabama)

assisted by attorney

Russell J. Leonard

(of Sewanee Tennessee)

defended

Lloyd R. Long

(of Decherd Tennessee)
_________________________________
________
Trial Transcript 1
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LongLloyd1.htm
======================================
Trial Transcript 2
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong2.htm
======================================
Trial Transcript 3
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong3.htm
======================================
Trial Transcript 4
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong4.htm
======================================
Trial Transcript 5
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong5.htm
======================================
Trial Transcript 6
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong6.htm
======================================
Trial Transcript 7
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong7.htm
======================================
Lowell H. Larry” Becraft, Jr.
——————————————————————
http://freedom-school.com/tax-matters/becraft-landmark-tax-case.html
_________________________________
________
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ

Created by Daniel B. Evans
………………………………………………..
Paranoid (and Other) Delusions

Certain arguments of tax protesters transcend legal or logical fallacies, and can only be described as neurotic or psychotic delusions
………………………………………………..
Daniel B. Evans must B Dan B Denier
………………………………………………..
There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as … Lloyd Long …

No. There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too stupid or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not “willful,” but no one has ever won against the IRS in a tax collection case using one of the frivolous arguments described in this FAQ

Some of the more notorious losers are described below
………………………………………………..
Dan might just be one of thosespecialpeople who are great at throwing Gubment cheese at others, but don’t expect him to agree to an open debate in front of a live audience
………………………………………………..
(This section of the FAQ will not be updated after 7/19/2007

Instead, a Tax Protester Dossiers wiki has been established to provide information about tax protester gurus, promoters, icons, martyrs, enablers, and other “big fish.”)
………………………………………………..
Tax Protester Dossiers
Gurus and Other Big Fish

Lloyd R. Long

Background

Not known

Theories Advocated/Promoted

Long’s defense in his criminal prosecution for failing to file tax returns was that his failure to file was not “willful” because he had studied the tax code and could not find any statute making him liable for the income tax

Court Actions

Mr. Long was prosecuted for criminal failure to file and was acquitted by a jury, which apparently had a reasonable doubt about whether he had “willfully” failed to file

United States v. Lloyd R. Long

No. CR-1-93-91

(U.S.D.C. E.D. Tenn. 10/15/1993)

Students/Disciples/Associates

Long was defended by Larry Becraft

page revision: 0, last edited: 4 Jul 2007, 13:47 (2863 days ago)
——————————————————————
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/lloyd-long
——————————————————————
There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as .. Lloyd Long …

Lloyd Long

The Lloyd Long case is one of the great “victories” of tax protesters, meaning that it is absolutely meaningless

Mr. Long was prosecuted for criminal failure to file and was acquitted by a jury, which apparently had a reasonable doubt about whether he had “willfully” failed to file
——————————————————————
http://www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
——————————————————————
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm
___________________________________
This article will be revised / updated with more information as time allows
Sixteenth Amendment 16th Amendment
1913 – 16th amendment was ratified February 3, 1913
_________________________________________________
‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration
——————————————————————
History
======================================
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=57
………………………………………………..
Transcript
======================================
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=57&page=transcript
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi
——————————————————————
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixteenth+Amendment
——————————————————————
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am16.html
——————————————————————
http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-16-status-of-income-tax-clarified
Form 1040
1916 – Brushaber case was decided January 24, 1916

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.

Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co

BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

Argued October 14, 15, 1915

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided January 24, 1916

No. 140

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 10]

We are of opinion, however

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

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:
——————————————————————
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]

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition …

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

… of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment … would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; … they would result in bringing the provisions … into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
ALL DIRECT TAXES BE APPORTIONED
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, … the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying … and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system …
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

That the authority conferred upon Congress by

8 of article 1

‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises’

is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

8 of article 1

to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

And it has also never

[240 U.S. 1, 13]

been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

lay and collect income taxes
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of

art. 1, 8, cl. 1,

that

‘all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art. 1, 8, cl. 1,

‘all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

and to the limitations of

art I., 2, cl. 3,

that

‘direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art I., 2, cl. 3,

direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

and of

art 1, 9, cl. 4,

that

‘no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art 1, 9, cl. 4,

‘no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & T. Co.

157 U. S. supra, at page 557:

‘In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

… the

TWO GREAT SUBDIVISIONS

EMBRACING the

COMPLETE

and

PERFECT

DELEGATION of the POWER to TAX

and the

TWO CORRELATED LIMITATIONS

as to such POWER …

IN the MATTER of TAXATION,

the

CONSTITUTION

recognizes the

TWO GREAT CLASSES

of

DIRECT

and

INDIRECT TAXES,

and lays down

TWO RULES

by which their IMPOSITION

MUST be GOVERNED, namely:

The

RULE of APPORTIONMENT

as to

DIRECT TAXES,

and the

RULE of UNIFORMITY

as to

DUTIES,

IMPOSTS,

and

EXCISES’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in

Veazie Bank v. Fenno,

8 Wall. 533, 541,

19 L. ed. 482, 485,

that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted

In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced

[240 U.S. 1, 14]

by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

… the REQUIREMENTS of

APPORTIONMENT as to one of the great classes

and of

UNIFORMITY as to the other class

were not so much a LIMITATION upon the

COMPLETE

and

ALL-EMBRACING

AUTHORITY to TAX,

but in their essence were simply

REGULATIONS

concerning the MODE

in which the

PLENARY POWER was to be exerted

In the WHOLE HISTORY of the GOVERNMENT

down to the time of the adoption of the

16th AMENDMENT,

...

[240 U.S. 1, 14]

… NO QUESTION

HAS BEEN ANYWHERE MADE

AS TO THE

CORRECTNESS OF THESE PROPOSITIONS
_________________________________________________
pg 16-17

240 U.S. 1, 16-17

(1916)

“The conclusion reached in the Pollock case …recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such”

Brushaber at page 18

wherein it was the

unanimous decision of the

U.S. Supreme Court

that the

Sixteenth Amendment

did not give Congress any new power to tax any new subjects

It also showed that the

income tax

was, in fact, an

excise

on

corporate privileges

and

privileged occupations

income tax is an EXCISE tax

It is on something you DO!

An activity or privilege tax

tax not on income, but on an activity

income tax does not neatly fall into any of the four constitutional taxes:

direct property tax, imposts, duties, or excises

But to be constitutional the income tax must fall within one of the four classes, so the closest was an excise
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned,

[240 U.S. 1, 18]

-or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived

[240 U.S. 1, 19]

forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

… the contention that the

AMENDMENT

treats a TAX on INCOME

as a

DIRECT TAX

although it is

RELIEVED from APPORTIONMENT

and is necessarily therefore

NOT SUBJECT

to the

RULE of UNIFORMITY

as such RULE

only applies to

TAXES which are NOT DIRECT,

thus destroying the

two great classifications

which have been

recognized

and

enforced

from the beginning,

IS also WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
——————————————————————
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

Flint v. Stone Tracy

FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO.

Flint vs Stone Tracy Co.

220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Nos. 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 415, 420, 425, 431, 432, 442, 443, 446, 456 and 457

Argued March 17 and 18, 1910

Ordered for reargument before full bench May 31, 1910

Reargued January 17, 18 and 19, 1911

Decided March 13, 1911

“Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain

(licensed)

occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privilege”

“…Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations … the tax must be measured by some standard…

It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income…”

wherein an

excise tax

was defined as a

“tax being laid upon the manufacture,

sale

and

consumption

of commodities within the country,

upon licenses to pursue certain occupations

and upon corporate privileges”
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/220/107.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=220&invol=107
——————————————————————
Case
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/107/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/107/
_________________________________
________
Simms v. Arehns

167 Ark. 557

271 S.W. 720

271 S.W. 720] 31 32

(271 S.W.) 733

271 SW 720 594, 595

wherein the court ruled that the
income tax

was neither a

property tax

nor a tax upon occupations of common right,

but was an

excise tax
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

_________________________________
________
Redfield v. Fisher

135 Or. 180

292 P. 813

292 P. 813, 819 (Ore.)

294 P. 461

73 A.L.R. 721

(1931)

wherein the court ruled that the

individual,

unlike the

corporation,

cannot be taxed

for the mere privilege of existing

but that the

individual’s right to live and own property were

natural rights

upon which an

excise

could not be imposed
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

_________________________________
________
Black’s Law Dictionary. 6th Edition

Excise tax

A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege
_________________________________
________
studies done by the

Congressional Research Service

that confirmed that the

income tax

is an

excise
_________________________________
________
Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATES THAT THE INCOME TAX IS NOT ON INCOME, but is an excise tax, applied only to certain taxable activities and privileges!

Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580

“So the amendment

(16th)

made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax

It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such

It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce

The income is not the subject of the tax:

it is the basis for determining the amount of tax”
Congressional Record 1943Congressional Record 1943imageCongressional Record 1943
——————————————————————

_________________________________
________
report by The Congressional Research Service

Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275

Report No. 84-168 A 784/275

titled

“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”

dated May 25, 1979

updated Sept. 26, 1984

Updated September 26, 1984

HJ 4625 U.S. A.

American Law Division

by Howard Zaritsky ; updated by John R. Luckey

Published 1984 by Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress in [Washington, D.C.]

“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above

Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity

Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://www.lib.miamioh.edu/multifacet/record/mu3ugb3100641
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________