Tag Archives: Direct Contradiction

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

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

_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! – Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-fI
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov (IRS L📍a ®💲 Lie about Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493, 1916)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-gp
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why Does the Congress of the United States of America Let the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) Lie about the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916)❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-g2
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a Direct tax
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) Judiciary Committee (@HouseJudiciary) Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015), in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943 pg. 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hk
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States Congress (@USCongress): The United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) and United States Senate (@USSenate), Joint Committee on Taxation (@jctgov) Allowed the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) to Rely on Inferior Courts of the United States who Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-i4
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Let the Inferior Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iA
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iL
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States, Sanction Litigants, When the Court Misstates the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jx
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
Why has Jack Lew, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (@USTreasury), Let the #IRS Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kl
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S.
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Judge David GUSTAFSON in the United States Tax Court (#USTaxCourt) in New York City, New York, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jx
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKAY, and Circuit Judge Carlos F. LUCERO, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kx
_________________________________________________
David William McKeague
David W. McKeague of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, formerly United States Federal District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan – Southern Division, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kJ
_________________________________________________
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Stanley MARCUS (R) of New York, NY, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Queens College, City University of New York (1967 B.A. @CUNYLawSchool magna cum laude), Harvard Law School (1971 L.D. @Harvard_Law @Harvard), Religion and the Constitution, and Trial Advocacy, Brooklyn Law School (@BrooklynLaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ln
_________________________________________________
President Barack Hussein Obama (Barack Obama @BarackObama) Judicial Nominee, Adalberto Josè JORDAN (Adalberto Jordan) of Havana, Cuba, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of St. Brendan High School (1980 @StBrendanHigh), University of Miami (1984 B.A. @UnivMiami magna cum laude), University of Miami School of Law (1987 J.D. @UMLawSchool summa cum laude 2nd in class), adjunct professor, University of Miami School of Law, and Florida International University College of Law (@FIULaw) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax
case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ly
_________________________________________________
President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush) Judicial Nominee, Susan Harrell Black (Susan H. BLACK a/k/a Susan Sims Harrell) of Valdosta, Georgia, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Fairborn High School (1961 @FairbornSkyhawk), Florida State University (1964 B.A. @FloridaState), University of Florida College of Law (1967 J.D. @UFLaw @UnivOfFL), University of Virginia School of Law (1984 LL.M. @UVALaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-lJ
________________________________________________
President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David GUSTAFSON (1983-2008 TAX ATTORNEY) of Greenville, South Carolina, United States Federal Judge, United States Tax Court, New York, NY, Alumni of Bob Jones University (1978 @BJUedu @BJUAlumni summa cum laude), Duke University School of Law (1981 with distinction @DukeLaw Order of the Coif @DukeLawAlumni), executive editor Duke Law Journal (1980-1981 @DukeLawJournal), United States FEDERAL INCOME TAX case EPIC FAIL——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-lV
_________________________________________________
President Ronald R. Reagan (Ronald Reagan) Judicial Nominee, Stephen Hale ANDERSON of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Eastern Oregon College of Education (1949-1951), Brigham Young University (1955-1956 @BYU @BYUalumni), University of Utah (1957-1960 Bachelor of Laws @UUtah S.J. Quinney College of Law @SJQuinney Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society @UtahAlumni Order of the Coif) Editor-in-Chief Utah Law Review (@UtahLawReview) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-m2
________________________________________________
President James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) Judicial Nominee, Monroe G. McKAY of Huntsville, Utah, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Brigham Young University (1957 @BYU @BYUalumni), University of Chicago Law (1960 @UCLaw @UChicago), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-md
________________________________________________
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Carlos F. LUCERO, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Adams State College (1961 @AdamsState) and George Washington University (1964 @GWtweets #GWU @GWLaw @GWAlumni @GWToday), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ml
_________________________________________________
President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David William McKeague (David W. McKeague) of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Sixth (6th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals (6/9/2005 Senator Carl Levin @SenCarlLevin Senator Debbie Stabenow @Stabenow) President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, United States District Judge, United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, Alumni of University of Michigan (1968 B.A. @UMich @MichiganAlumni #UMAlumni) and University of Michigan Law School (1971 J.D. @UMichLaw @MichLawSchool), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kJ
_________________________________________________
United States Constitution

First Amendment

Amendment I

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

or

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

peaceably to assemble,

and

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT

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

#GoFundMe

gofundme.com/upsdgw
_________________________________________________

Advertisements

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

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
_________________________________________________
Why has Jack Lew, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (@USTreasury), Let the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS), Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943
________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
(IRS L📍a ®💲 Lie about Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493, 1916)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-gp
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
_________________________________________________
Congressional Record – House March 27 1943. pg 2580
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

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

United States Eagle
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Let the Inferior Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943
_________________________________________________
https://senate.gov
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2579) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2579 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
http://www.senate.gov/committees/committees_home.htm
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2580) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2580 2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommittees
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
_________________________________________________
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommittees#constitution
_________________________________________________
Subcommittee on The Constitution
_________________________________________________
Senator Cornyn, Chairman
@JohnCornyn

https://cornyn.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Durbin, Ranking Member
@SenatorDurbin

https://durbin.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Tillis
@SenThomTillis

https://tillis.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@ThomTillis

_________________________________________________
Senator Graham
@GrahamBlog

https://lgraham.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

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

_________________________________________________
Senator Cruz
@SenTedCruz

https://cruz.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@TedCruz

@CruzNews2016

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

_________________________________________________
Senator Vitter
@DavidVitter

https://vitter.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Majority Office

Phone: 202-224-7840
_________________________________________________
Minority Office

Phone: 202-224-1158
_________________________________________________
Jurisdiction:

(1) Constitutional amendments;

(2) Enforcement and protection of constitutional rights;

(3) Statutory guarantees of civil rights and civil liberties;

(4) Separation of powers;

(5) Federal-State relations;

(7) Human rights laws and practices;

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