Tag Archives: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company 240 U.S. 103 36 S.Ct. 278 60 L.Ed. 546 No. 359

Adalberto Jose JORDAN, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia, Law Dragon Magazine named him one of the 500 leading Judges in America (2006), Honored by the Dade County Bar Association with the Alan R. Schwartz Judicial Excellence Award of the Miami-Dade County Bar Associations (2007 @UMDCBA), recognizing the outstanding contributions jurists made to the Miami-Dade legal community, Legal Excellence Award from Florida International University College of Law (2008 @FIULaw @FIU), supported by the Cuban American Bar Association (@CABAonline), Hispanic National Bar Association (@HNBANews), J.D. Program – University of Miami School of Law (@UMLawSchool @UnivMiami), and the American Bar Association has given Judge Jordan the rating of “Unanimously Well Qualified” to serve on the Circuit Court (@ABAesq @ABANews), which I presume means: Unanimously Well Qualified to state the Exact Opposite of the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915 Decided February 21, 1916), as was done by Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan and his two colleagues, Dec. 29 2014, in Irvin E. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, 14-12062, Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, wherein the court stated: “Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE, March 27 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A 784 / 275, “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: “the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”

Sand Dollar
Adalberto Jose JORDAN, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia, Law Dragon Magazine named him one of the 500 leading Judges in America (2006), Honored by the Dade County Bar Association with the Alan R. Schwartz Judicial Excellence Award of the Miami-Dade County Bar Associations (2007 @UMDCBA), recognizing the outstanding contributions jurists made to the Miami-Dade legal community, Legal Excellence Award from Florida International University College of Law (2008 @FIULaw @FIU), supported by the Cuban American Bar Association (@CABAonline), Hispanic National Bar Association (@HNBANews), J.D. Program – University of Miami School of Law (@UMLawSchool @UnivMiami), and the American Bar Association has given Judge Jordan the rating of “Unanimously Well Qualified” to serve on the Circuit Court (@ABAesq @ABANews), which I presume means: Unanimously Well Qualified to state the Exact Opposite of the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915 Decided February 21, 1916), as was done by Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan and his two colleagues, Dec. 29 2014, in Irvin E. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, 14-12062, Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, wherein the court stated: “Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE, March 27 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A 784 / 275, “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: “the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”
_________________________________________________
Do not worry ladies, gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages – I’m sure Judge Adelberto Josè Jordan is NOT corrupt, and that he will explain why it is that he and his colleagues chose to disregard two (2) unanimous Supreme Court of the United States decisions, and instead, chose to cite a United States Tenth (10th) Circuit Appeals Court decision which claims, falsely, to cite the U.S. Supreme Court

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

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

I await the press release, article, or public explanation by Judge Adelberto Josè Jordan, for his actions
_________________________________________________
United States Senator Charles (Chuck) Grassley (Iowa) R (@ChuckGrassley)
………………………………………………..
https://www.grassley.senate.gov
——————————————————————
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/recess-appointments-and-judicial-nominee-adalberto-jose-jordan
——————————————————————
United States Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont) D (@SenatorLeahy)
………………………………………………..
https://www.leahy.senate.gov
——————————————————————
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/after-four-month-plus-two-day-delay-senate-confirms-11th-circuit-nominee
………………………………………………..
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-americans-deserve-courts-ready-to-serve-not-unexplained-confirmation-delays
——————————————————————
http://www.cabademo.com/content/caba-board-directors-support-letter-us-district-judge-adalberto-jordan
——————————————————————
adalberto_jordan@flsd.uscourts.gov
——————————————————————
http://www.law.miami.edu/faculty-administration/adjunct/adjunct-faculty-jd.php
——————————————————————
http://lawreview.law.miami.edu/11th-circuit-judge-adalberto-jordan-discusses-remarkable-career-memories-um-law-review/
——————————————————————
Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary
——————————————————————
http://hfjnow.org/news/hispanics_for_a_fair_judiciary_calls_on_senators_to_put_politics_aside_support_judge_adalberto_jose_jordan/
………………………………………………..
http://ballotpedia.org/Adalberto_Jordan
………………………………………………..
http://www.discourse.net/2012/02/judge-adalberto-jordan-um-jd-87-confirmed-to-11th-circuit/
——————————————————————
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/63491461/Judge-Jordan-s-CA11-Questionnaire
………………………………………………..
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/AdalbertoJordan-PublicQuestionnaire.pdf
………………………………………………..
adalberto_jordan@flsd.uscourts.gov
——————————————————————
https://www.dadecountybar.org/about-us/history/past-award-recipients/dcba-third-district-court-appeal-judicial-awards/
——————————————————————
American Bar Association’s
Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements
——————————————————————
http://www.afj.org/our-work/nominees/adalberto-jose-jordan
======================================
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
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
_________________________________________________
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal
………………………………………………..
Second

[for nearly a century]

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

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

United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

(10th Cir. 1990)
——————————————————————
Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)
_________________________________________________
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 4
FACT: The UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that the 16th Amendment DOES NOT Provide Power to Levy a DIRECT INCOME TAX Not Subject to the Regulation of Apportionment applicable to All Other DIRECT TAXES [240 U.S. 1, 11] (1916)
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

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

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

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

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

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

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

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

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

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

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

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

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

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

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

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

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

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

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
The Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States
——————————————————————
Chief Justice Edward D. White

Associate Justice Joseph McKenna

Associate Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.

Associate Justice William R. Day

Associate Justice Charles E. Hughes

Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter

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

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

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: December 29th 2014

Docket Number: 14-12062

Case: 14-12062

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

11th Circuit
Eleventh Circuit

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK

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

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 89-PART 2

MARCH 2, 1943, TO APRIL 5, 1943

(PAGES 1459 TO 2940)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1943
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
_________________________________________________
1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2579) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2579 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2580) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2580 2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2581 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2581
_________________________________________________
United States Constitution

First Amendment

Amendment I

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

or

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

peaceably to assemble,

and

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT

FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
………………………………………………..
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

Advertisements

Stanley MARCUS, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia, Honored by Federal Bar Association (@FederalBar), South Florida Chapter, with Edward B. Davis award for Service to the Federal Bench and Bar, which recognizes those who exemplify the values and actions we treasure as a legal community; which I presume means: Stating the Exact Opposite of the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), as was done by Judge Stanley Marcus and his two colleagues, Dec. 29 2014, in Irvin E. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, 14-12062, Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, wherein the court stated: “Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990),” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: “the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”

image
Stanley MARCUS, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, Atlanta, Georgia, Honored by Federal Bar Association (@FederalBar), South Florida Chapter, with Edward B. Davis award for Service to the Federal Bench and Bar, which recognizes those who exemplify the values and actions we treasure as a legal community; which I presume means: Stating the Exact Opposite of the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), as was done by Judge Stanley Marcus and his two colleagues, Dec. 29 2014, in Irvin E. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, 14-12062, Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, wherein the court stated: “Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990),” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: “the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”
_________________________________________________
Do not worry ladies, gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages – I’m sure Judge Stanley Marcus is NOT corrupt, and that he will explain why it is that he and his colleagues chose to disregard two (2) unanimous Supreme Court of the United States decisions, and instead, chose to cite a United States Tenth (10th) Circuit Appeals Court decision which claims, falsely, to cite the U.S. Supreme Court

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

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

I await the press release, article, or public explanation by Judge Stanley Marcus, for his actions
_________________________________________________
South Florida Chapter, Newsletter Awards Application 2014.pdf
http://www.fedbar.org
——————————————————————
Jun 12, 2014 – NEWSLETTER RECOGNITION AWARDS …. Edward B. Davis award – Judge Stanley Marcus
——————————————————————
http://www.fedbar.org/Hidden-Files/2014-Newsletter-Submissions/South-Florida-Chapter/South%20Florida%20Chapter,%20Newsletter%20Awards%20Application%202014.pdf.aspx?FT=.pdf
——————————————————————
http://fba-sdfla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/s-fla-Fall13.pdf
——————————————————————
https://orgsync.com/70253/events/654148/occurrences/575617
——————————————————————
http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2013/10/ned-award-goes-to-judge-stanley-marcus.html?m=1
——————————————————————
http://stluciecriminallaw.com/blog/ned-award-goes-to-judge-stanley-marcus/
——————————————————————
http://mmason.freeshell.org/junklaw/NoMandamusReviewRight.html
………………………………………………..
https://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/
======================================
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Stanley MARCUS (R) of New York, NY, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Queens College, City University of New York (1967 B.A. @CUNYLawSchool magna cum laude), Harvard Law School (1971 L.D. @Harvard_Law @Harvard), Religion and the Constitution, and Trial Advocacy, Brooklyn Law School (@BrooklynLaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ln
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
_________________________________________________
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal
——————————————————————
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia  (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges
_________________________________________________
Second

[for nearly a century]

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

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

United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

(10th Cir. 1990)
——————————————————————
Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)
_________________________________________________
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 4
________________________________________________
FACT: The UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that the 16th Amendment DOES NOT Provide Power to Levy a DIRECT INCOME TAX Not Subject to the Regulation of Apportionment applicable to All Other DIRECT TAXES [240 U.S. 1, 11] (1916)
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

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

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

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

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

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

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

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

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

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

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

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

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

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

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

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

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

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

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
The Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States
——————————————————————
Chief Justice Edward D. White

Associate Justice Joseph McKenna

Associate Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.

Associate Justice William R. Day

Associate Justice Charles E. Hughes

Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter

Associate Justice Mahlon Pitney
_________________________________________________
Dec. 29 2014

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

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: December 29th 2014

Docket Number: 14-12062

Case: 14-12062

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

11th Circuit
Eleventh Circuit

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK

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

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 89-PART 2

MARCH 2, 1943, TO APRIL 5, 1943

(PAGES 1459 TO 2940)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1943
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
_________________________________________________
1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2579) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2579 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2580) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2580 2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2581 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2581
_________________________________________________
United States Constitution

First Amendment

Amendment I

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

or

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

peaceably to assemble,

and

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT

FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
………………………………………………..
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

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
_________________________________________________

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, 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”❓

Sixteenth Amendment 16th Amendment XVI
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-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
_________________________________________________
http://www.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.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 2580) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2580 2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
(Fed.R.App.P. 38 sanctions for raising frivolous sixteenth amendment argument in petition for rehearing);
………………………………………………..
(Fed.R.App.P. 38 sanctions imposed on pro se litigants raising frivolous sixteenth amendment contentions)
_________________________________________________
1⃣ Nov. 12 1981 Lonsdale
2⃣ Jan. 11 1982 McCarty
3⃣ Feb. 6 1984 Parker
4⃣ Dec. 18 1984 Lovell
5⃣ Sept. 6 1989 Becraft
6⃣ Nov. 27 1990 Collins
7⃣ July 11 1994 Mundt
8⃣ July 22 1996 MacZka
9⃣ Dec. 24 1998 Lyman
🔟 2010 Ulloa
1⃣1⃣ Dec. 29 2014 Taliaferro
_________________________________________________
1⃣
Nov. 12 1981 Lonsdale

Fifth Circuit Judge

Thomas Gibbs GEE

Emilio GARZA

Albert A. TATE, Jr.

Appellants’ contentions are stale ones, long settled against them

As such they are frivolous

Bending over backwards, in indulgence of appellants’ pro se status, we today forbear the sanctions of Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P.

We publish this opinion as notice to future litigants that the continued advancing of these long-defunct arguments invites such sanctions, however
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/661/661.F2d.71.81-4215.html
………………………………………………..
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/661/71/298013/
======================================
2⃣
Jan. 11 1982 McCarty

Fifth Circuit Judge

Thomas Gibbs GEE

Emilio GARZA

Albert A. TATE, Jr.
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/665/596/408342/
………………………………………………..
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/665/665.F2d.596.80-2231.81-1021.html
======================================
3⃣
Feb. 6 1984 Parker

Fifth Circuit Judge

Thomas Gibbs GEE

Henry Anthony POLITZ

Samuel D. JOHNSON, Jr.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge

The absence of a semblance of merit in any issue raised in appellant’s appeal mandates a repeat of the warning we gave in Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d at 72, concerning the very claims raised in this case:

Appellants’ contentions are stale ones, long settled against them

As such they are frivolous

Bending over backwards, in indulgence of appellants’ pro se status, we today forbear the sanctions of Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P.

We publish this opinion as notice to future litigants that the continued advancing of these long-defunct arguments invite such sanctions, however

Our warning has been ignored

We now invoke the sanctions of Fed.R.App.P. 38 and assess appellant with double costs

This time we do not award damages but sound a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years

The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/724/724.F2d.469.83-4300.html
======================================
4⃣
Dec. 18 1984 Lovell

Chief Judge

Seventh Circuit Judge

Walter J. CUMMINGS Jr.

Richard Dickson CUDAHY

Joel Martin FLAUM
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/755/755.F2d.517.84-1547.html
======================================
5⃣
Sept. 6 1989 Becraft

Ninth Circuit Judge

Warren J. FERGUSON

William A. NORRIS

Charles E. WIGGINS
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/885/885.F2d.547.88-1113.html
………………………………………………..
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/885/547/144356/
======================================
6⃣
Nov. 27 1990 Collins

Tenth Circuit Judge

Stephanie Kulp SEYMOUR

Bobby Ray BALDOCK

Wade BRORBY

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/920/920.F2d.619.90-6077.html
======================================
7⃣
July 11 1994 Mundt

JONES

Circuit Judges

GRAHAM, District Judge.*

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge
——————————————————————
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/F3/29/29.F3d.233.html
======================================
8⃣
July 22 1996 MacZka

United States District Court

District Judge

David W. McKeague
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/957/988/1581452/
======================================
9⃣
Dec. 24 1998 Lyman

Tenth Circuit Judge

Stephen Hale ANDERSON

Monroe G. McKAY

Carlos F. LUCERO
——————————————————————
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/166/166.F3d.349.98-4109.html
======================================
🔟
April 6 2010 Ulloa

United States Tax Court Judge

David GUSTAFSON
——————————————————————
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ulloa.TCM.WPD.pdf
======================================
1⃣1⃣
Dec. 29 2014 Taliaferro

Eleventh Circuit Judge

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK
——————————————————————
https://courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
WHY SHOULD THE INFERIOR UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURTS BE ALLOWED TO MISSTATE THE UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN SANCTION LITIGANTS WHOM THE COURT ALLEGES HAVE DONE WHAT THE COURT DID, BECAUSE OF CONGRESS’ INFATUATION WITH STARE DECISIS
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
………………………………………………..
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis
………………………………………………..
http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
_________________________________________________
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
_________________________________________________
Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley
@ChuckGrassley
(R – IA)
https://grassley.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@GrassleyOffice

_________________________________________________
MAJORITY
_________________________________________________
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
@SenOrrinHatch
(R – UT)
https://hatch.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Jeff Sessions
@SenatorSessions
(R – AL)
https://sessions.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Lindsey Graham
@GrahamBlog
(R – SC)
https://lgraham.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator John Cornyn
@JohnCornyn
(R – TX)
https://cornyn.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Michael S. Lee
Senator Mike Lee
@SenMikeLee
(R – UT)
https://lee.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
(R – TX)
https://cruz.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@TedCruz

@CruzNews2016

_________________________________________________
Senator Jeff Flake
@JeffFlake
(R – AZ)
https://flake.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@SenFlakeStaff

_________________________________________________
Senator David Vitter
@DavidVitter
(R – LA)
https://vitter.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator David Perdue
@PerdueSenate
(R – GA)
https://perdue.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Thom Tillis
@SenThomTillis
(R – NC)
https://tillis.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@ThomTillis

_________________________________________________
Ranking Member
Senator Patrick Leahy
@SenatorLeahy
(D – VT)
https://leahy.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
MINORITY
_________________________________________________
Senator Dianne Feinstein
@SenFeinstein
(D – CA)
https://feinstein.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@DianneFeinstein

_________________________________________________
Senator Charles Ellis Schumer
Senator Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
(D – NY)
https://schumer.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@SenatorSchumer

_________________________________________________
Senator Dick Durbin
@SenatorDurbin
(D – IL)
https://durbin.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
@SenWhitehouse
(D – RI)
https://whitehouse.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

@SLarson83

_________________________________________________
Senator Amy Klobuchar
@AmyKlobuchar
(D – MN)
https://klobuchar.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

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

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

_________________________________________________
Senator Richard Blumenthal
@SenBlumenthal
(D – CT)
https://blumenthal.senate.gov
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
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-iL
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________
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 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 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
_________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________