+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 29

  1. #1
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Freedom To Fascism

    "The best case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
    -- Winston Churchill

  2. #2
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    This is very good D, extremely well done. And much faster than reading all the books necessary to learn it. :D There is no money though. Only notes/legal tender/debt instruments. ;)

    Thanks,

    Lady Mod

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    throughly filled with lies, and debunked. anyone who still claims that the 16th amendment was not ratified are delusional and/or lying through their teeth.

  4. #4
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizywyg
    throughly filled with lies, and debunked. anyone who still claims that the 16th amendment was not ratified are delusional and/or lying through their teeth.
    Oh pray tell us, how was it debunked? I had certified copies of the papers from the Smithsonian before I gave them to a friend of mine and as I recall, the 16th amendment did not get the numbers needed to ratify it.

    So, I'm very interested in knowing what info you have that proves otherwise.


    Lady Mod


    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    Oh pray tell us, how was it debunked? I had certified copies of the papers from the Smithsonian before I gave them to a friend of mine and as I recall, the 16th amendment did not get the numbers needed to ratify it.
    yes it did. the whole Ohio claim that it wasn't a state is a red herring. They had ENOUGH votes to ratify it even without Ohio

    The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.


    Relevant Cases:
    Relevant Case Law:
    Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) –
    the court stated, “We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken
    line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment
    generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those
    specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was,
    have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective
    forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.” The court
    imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a “patently frivolous”
    position.

    United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
    479 U.S. 1036 (1987) – stating that “the Secretary of State’s certification
    under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been
    ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the
    Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,” the court upheld Stahl’s
    conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

    United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883
    (1986) – the court affirmed Foster’s conviction for tax evasion, failing to file
    a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the
    Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

    Socia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994) – the court held that
    defendant’s appeals which challenged Sixteenth Amendment income tax
    legislation were frivolous and warranted sanctions.

    Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984), cert.
    denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) – the court rejected the contention that the
    Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as “totally without
    merit” and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the
    frivolousness of his appeal. “Every court that has considered this
    argument has rejected it,” the court observed.

    Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823
    (2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006). – the court imposed sanctions
    totaling $25,000 against the taxpayer for advancing arguments
    characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that have been universally rejected
    by the courts, including arguments regarding the Sixteenth Amendment.
    In affirming the Tax Court’s holding, the Fifth Circuit granted the
    government’s request for further sanctions of $6,000 against the taxpayer
    for maintaining frivolous arguments on appeal, and the Fifth Circuit
    imposed an additional $6,000 sanctions on its own, for total additional
    sanctions of $12,000.



    States that Ratified and when:
    1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
    2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
    3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
    4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
    5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
    6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
    7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
    8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
    9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
    10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
    11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
    12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
    13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
    14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
    15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
    16. California (January 31, 1911)
    17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
    18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
    19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
    20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
    21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
    22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
    23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
    24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
    25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
    26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
    27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
    28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
    29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911)
    30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
    31. New York (July 12, 1911)
    32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
    33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
    34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
    35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
    36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
    37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
    38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) <---- even without Ohio, they had 37 votes on 2/13/1913
    39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
    40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
    41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
    42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913

    On 2/3/1913, they had more than the 36 votes needed to ratify (which is 3/4ths of 48 states); by March of 1913, they had 42 votes (41 without Ohio if you want to play the Ohio wasn't a state card). MORE than enough to ratify the amendment. Three fourths are needed to pass an amendment. In 1913 there were 48 states (Arizona being the last till Alaska and Hawaii joined in 1959).

  6. #6
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    I notice that they don't give you photos of the actual documents to prove each and every one of them were properly filled out and executed. You just have to take their word for it. The word of the IRS. LOL. That's a hoot.

    The IRS isn't even a U.S. entity. They are foreign.

    Lady Mod

  7. #7
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizywyg
    yes it did. the whole Ohio claim that it wasn't a state is a red herring. They had ENOUGH votes to ratify it even without Ohio



    The 16th amendment was not legally ratified. Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

    The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

    Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it.

    In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax.

    When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it. That's fraud.

    In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

    Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out.

    That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

    If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

    The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators.

    The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome.

    It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. If you've already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so.

    They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18.

    These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

    Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

    Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their own constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration (since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it - believe it or not).

    States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

    When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent.

    Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate officials.

    This is no more than any ordinary schmuck has to do in filing a legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise - it is not acceptable and is meaningless.

    How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment?

    Yet, a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox.

    The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all. So, Knox could not have known what they even voted on.

    Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

    The last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? Funny huh? They never did.


    The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified.

    Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
    "The best case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
    -- Winston Churchill

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    I notice that they don't give you photos of the actual documents to prove each and every one of them were properly filled out and executed.
    I noticed that you didn't provide them either. photos of documents do not prove anything. All the information is available in books and online.

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

    Again, properly ratified on 2/3/1913 by 38 STATES! only 36 was needed (even without Ohio's vote, they had 37!)

    You just have to take their word for it. The word of the IRS. LOL. That's a hoot.

    The IRS isn't even a U.S. entity. They are foreign.

    I noticed that you conveniently IGNORE the supreme court rulings on the various arguments about the ratification of the 16ht amendment. I noticed that you ignored that when the states voted to ratify. Why do you ignore what is fact?

    IRS is not foregin entity, and anyone spreading this lie really needs to stop and actually read their history books
    Last edited by Wizywyg; 06-14-2007 at 10:02 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by dchristie
    The 16th amendment was not legally ratified. Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
    sorry snipped the rest of your post since it actually is wrong

    The Supreme Court has weighed these claims and dutifully found those who have used these claims to be 100% wrong:

    United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986); Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9103 (2d Cir. 1984); Sisk v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 58, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9433 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9308 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9518 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987); Brown v. Commissioner, 53 T.C.M. (CCH) 94, T.C. Memo 1987-78, CCH Dec. 43,696(M) (1987); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 87-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9296 (7th Cir. 1987); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9184 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. House, 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985).


    Again the list of states who RATIFIED the 16th Amendment, and KNOX didn't have to do anything:
    1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
    2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
    3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
    4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
    5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
    6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
    7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
    8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
    9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
    10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
    11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
    12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
    13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
    14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
    15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
    16. California (January 31, 1911)
    17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
    18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
    19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
    20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
    21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
    22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
    23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
    24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
    25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
    26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
    27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
    28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
    29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911)
    30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
    31. New York (July 12, 1911)
    32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
    33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
    34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
    35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
    36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
    37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
    38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
    39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
    40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
    41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
    42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913)


    supported by this link:
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html


    THEY had enough VOTES even without OHIO!

  10. #10
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizywyg
    I noticed that you didn't provide them either. photos of documents do not prove anything. All the information is available in books and online.

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

    Again, properly ratified on 2/3/1913 by 38 STATES! only 36 was needed (even without Ohio's vote, they had 37!)


    I noticed that you conveniently IGNORE the supreme court rulings on the various arguments about the ratification of the 16ht amendment. I noticed that you ignored that when the states voted to ratify. Why do you ignore what is fact?

    IRS is not foregin entity, and anyone spreading this lie really needs to stop and actually read their history books
    Honestly Wizzy, it makes no matter to me. You can not win a tax case on the premise of the 16th amendment. There are better ways of doing it and I posted some leads to those ways in the Government section.

    I asked an IRS agent, they didn't have a problem saying it was a foreign entity.

    And I met Bill Benson, several times. He is very knowledgable and sincere. He's just fighting a lost cause going up against a money hungry entity.

    Lady Mod

    .

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    Honestly Wizzy, it makes no matter to me. You can not win a tax case on the premise of the 16th amendment. There are better ways of doing it and I posted some leads to those ways in the Government section.
    No one can win saying that the 16th amendment was not ratified. As been proven in SUPREME court cases. Anyone who continues to use that argument will have at least 20 cases thrown at them stating that the argument is silly and frivolous.

    Any other 16th amendment arguments are also dealt with and the Supreme Court has ruled against those who use them including arguments:

    "The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax."
    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
    “[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.”
    Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
    “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
    "The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word “income” is not defined."
    Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935)
    “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.”
    I asked an IRS agent, they didn't have a problem saying it was a foreign entity.
    Then he doesn't understand whom actually determines what is collected, and who collects it. IRS is not a foreign entity, and your agent is sadly misinformed. The IRC allows the Secretary of the Treasury to perform and supervise all functions of the IRS. Please , tell us who does the Secretary of Treasury work for?

    Claim:
    "The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the federal government, but a private corporation incorporated in Delaware (or, alternatively, an agency of the government of Puerto Rico or any other foreign nation))."

    Section 7801(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states that the administration and enforcement of the Code shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 7802(a) then says that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury who shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Finally, Section 7803(a) of the Code states that the Secretary is authorized to employ persons for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Acting under these laws, the Department of the Treasury has adopted regulations creating the Internal Revenue Service, of which the following is a part:

    “The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed.” Treas. Reg. Section 601.101(a).
    The legitimacy and authority of the Internal Revenue Service has been confirmed by the Supreme Court:

    “[T]he Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under section 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” - Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971).
    And yet several courts have had to confirm that the IRS is indeed part of the government of the United States:

    “It is clear that the Internal Revenue Code gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the Internal Revenue Service, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute.” - Snyder v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (N.D. In. 1984).
    “Plaintiff attempts to circumvent this conclusion by arguing that the IRS is ‘a private corporation’ because it was not created by ‘any positive law’ (i.e., statute of Congress) but rather by fiat of the Secretary of the Treasury. Apparently, this argument is based on the fact that in 1953 the Secretary of the Treasury renamed the Bureau of Internal Revenue as the Internal Revenue Service. However, it is clear that the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and has the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a). Pursuant to this legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS. 26 C.F.R. § 601.101. The end result is that the IRS is a creature of ‘positive law’ because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff’s own ‘positive law’ premise, the, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a ‘private corporation.’” - Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D.Ind. 1984).

  12. #12
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    What part of, "it makes no matter to me, you can't win a tax case on the premise of the 16th amendment" didn't you understand?

    Lady Mod

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    What part of, "it makes no matter to me, you can't win a tax case on the premise of the 16th amendment" didn't you understand?

    Lady Mod
    I KNOW and UNDERSTAND what you are saying ; however YOU are missing my point.

    Im stating that claims made by TAX protesters cover the gamut of frivolous statements; and many appear in the SAME case by a claimant. And all of them , shot down by the Supreme Court.

    Tax protesters have used several ARGUMENTS in their same case, including the 16th amendment claims and other claims like stating the IRS is a foreign entity; or that the Constitution doesn't allow direct tax, even so much as that the tax is an invasion of privacy.

    No one has won a case stating that income tax is illegal or unlawful or has won using the many frivolous claims by tax protesters. Many are playing the "legal" loophole to try and get their claims pass, but the SUPREME court has ruled against every single one of them

    Many have tried. EVERYONE of them has failed.
    Last edited by Wizywyg; 06-15-2007 at 02:59 AM.

  14. #14
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizywyg
    I KNOW and UNDERSTAND what you are saying ; however YOU are missing my point.

    Im stating that claims made by TAX protesters cover the gamut of frivolous statements; and many appear in the SAME case by a claimant. And all of them , shot down by the Supreme Court.

    Tax protesters have used several ARGUMENTS in their same case, including the 16th amendment claims and other claims like stating the IRS is a foreign entity; or that the Constitution doesn't allow direct tax, even so much as that the tax is an invasion of privacy.

    No one has won a case stating that income tax is illegal or unlawful or has won using the many frivolous claims by tax protesters. Many are playing the "legal" loophole to try and get their claims pass, but the SUPREME court has ruled against every single one of them

    Many have tried. EVERYONE of them has failed.
    I wasn't missing your point.

    The people I know that have done it successfully haven't used any of those arguments and they no longer pay taxes, nor are they harrassed. And they have over a 15 year record of doing it. They aren't using frivolous claims. They are using the codes and statutes. But they don't sell it, teach it, or advertise it. You have to be very knowledgable of IRS codes as well as Federal codes and statutes before even attempting to try something like what they do.

    Personal income is not a taxable commodity. Not as defined by statutes and codes. But as long as the IRS can get it off, more power to them.


    Lady Mod

  15. #15
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizywyg
    No one can win saying that the 16th amendment was not ratified. As been proven in SUPREME court cases. Anyone who continues to use that argument will have at least 20 cases thrown at them stating that the argument is silly and frivolous.

    Bla-bla-bla-bla. What I find stranger than all the ready access to a plethora of legal citations revolving around this issue is the evangelical advocacy for a system and an institution that is, arguably, one of the most un-American, evil and monstrous things in our history and, indeed, the history of mankind.

    If it weren't for the relentless intimidation of average Americans under the boot of this Gestapo of Government Goons whose job is to rob and pillage the resources of hard working people, none of the ill-conceived and counter productive schemes that have been hatched by government criminals could have been funded and carried out against humanity in our name..including the fiasco in Iraq-Nam. Paying into the IRS shakedown racket is only a small part of the overall expense wrought by this Tyrannical Government Mafia on the American People.

    WHO WAS PHILANDER KNOX?
    IS IT CREDIBLE THAT HE WOULD COMMIT FRAUD?


    Understanding a crime or a misdeed involves learning not only what was done and who did it, but also what the motivation was.

    With a clear motive, evidence of the "what" and "who" becomes much more credible.

    Allegations that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he falsely declared the 16th amendment ratified in 1913, require us to look at who he was to understand why he would commit such an act.

    The following sketch was prepared by the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education and is condensed from Bill Benson's research report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment, "The Law That Never Was," Volume II (1985), pages 122-135.

    ____________________________________________

    Philander Chase Knox was born in 1853 in western Pennsylvania, son of a bank cashier. While attending college in Ohio, he became closely acquainted with William McKinley, then the local district attorney, who was prosecuting a local tavern owner for selling alcohol to the college students. Knox took McKinley's advice and became a lawyer.

    McKinley, having chaired the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in Congress, was elected governor of Ohio in 1891. Although he owed his election to support from both business and labor, he quelled the labor strike called by Eugene V. Debs against the Great Northern Railroad in 1894 by summoning federal troops.

    McKinley won the 1896 presidential race with a great deal of support from Big Business, e.g., John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil contributed $250,000 to the "front porch" campaign that defeated Bryan and his populist platform of returning to the constitutionally mandated monetary system and reform of McKinley's high tariffs that had allowed domestic manufacturers to raise their prices to a level that matched the artificially-induced higher prices of foreign goods, thus causing a severe depression.

    Knox helped in this financial and political effort that was directed by the wealthy Ohio industrialist Mark Hanna, who was appointed to a vacant U.S. Senate seat the following year by Ohio's governor. McKinley had already been saved from personal financial ruin by help from his old friend, Philander Knox, who had become wealthy as counsel to the very wealthy.

    Knox came to be regarded as one of the ablest lawyers in the country, his repute due in no small measure to his being counsel for Carnegie and Vanderbilt and their corporate enterprises.

    He was instrumental in Carnegie's big victory in a crucial patent case in which the most important invention for the manufacture of crude steel was at stake.

    In 1892, he defended Henry Frick, Carnegie's steel plant manager, who was being sued by the steel workers who had been beaten up by Pinkertons brought in by Frick during the infamous Homestead strike, a strike that was provoked by two of Carnegie's presidents, one of whom was also an attorney for J.P. Morgan.

    Knox also deflected prosecution and civil suit against Carnegie in 1894 after it was shown to Congress that Carnegie had defrauded the Navy with inferior armor plate for U.S. warships.

    Morgan himself had defrauded the U.S. Army in arms sales during the Civil War. And Knox averted prosecution of Carnegie after the president of the Morgan-controlled Pennsylvania Railroad testified that Carnegie had regularly received illegal kickbacks from the railroad.

    Knox's other big client at the time, the Vanderbilt family, was connected to Carnegie primarily through the railroad industry.

    President McKinley offered Knox the post of U.S. Attorney General in 1899, but Knox had to decline, because he was then and for two more years engaged in arranging the merger of the railroad, oil, coal, iron and steel interests of Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and other robber barons into the largest conglomerate in history - U.S. Steel.

    This immense corporation encompassed the interests of nearly all the robber barons in what Knox's new client, J.P. Morgan, referred to as a "community of interest." One important component of the conglomerate was Consolidated Iron Mines in the Mesabi Range of Minnesota, which Rockefeller had fraudulently swindled from the Merritt family, who later successfully sued John D. for fraud, but had to settle for a fraction of the award because they ran out of money during Rockefeller's appeals.

    After the U.S. Steel merger, Knox accepted McKinley's offer to make him Attorney General, an appointment that was personally promoted by Carnegie in a letter to McKinley and by Morgan in a personal visit to the White House.

    The appointment was strenuously and loudly opposed by anti-trust forces, since it would then be up to Knox to prosecute anti-trust law violations against the very robber barons who had been his clients for many years and who had made him a wealthy man.

    Sure enough, the public outcry to investigate the big new U.S. Steel monster that Knox had created met with Knox's response that he knew nothing and could do nothing, and nothing is what he did.

    After McKinley's assassination in 1901, Knox continued as Attorney General under Theodore Roosevelt.

    Even though Roosevelt labeled himself as a "trust-buster," Knox saw to it that very little harm came to his benefactors.

    U.S. Steel was unscathed, and most of the actions that were taken against the railroad companies were largely done with the urging of the railroad giants themselves, who were the strongest advocates of federal regulation of the industry, because that regulation, with their own agents working in the federal commissions, enabled them to gain greater control over the industry, be protected from competition, and maintain prices.

    The best-known anti-trust case was against Northern Securities, a railroad holding company formed by Morgan as a show of strength for the benefit of Hill, Harriman, Rockefeller, and their bankers, Kuhn, Loeb & Company.

    The dissolution of Northern by the Supreme Court in 1904 was deemed "inconsequential" by the financial press, since the two major railroads it encompassed had not been competing anyway, and the defendants ended up suffering no loss.

    Knox, of course, did not pursue any of the criminal sanctions that he should have undertaken against his former allies and clients, but the case gave the appearance that Roosevelt was doing something and was a public relations success for the president.

    But Roosevelt, while touting himself as an anti-trust champion, disparaged and labeled as "muckrakers" those journalists who actually investigated and exposed the corrupt activities of the robber barons.

    Harriman's great fortune had been acquired through a series of fraudulent maneuvers, key of which was legislation signed by Roosevelt, at that time governor of New York, allowing New York banks to invest in railroad bonds being sold by Harriman and his partners at inflated prices.

    Hill profited enormously from fraud, deceit, and outright theft involving vast amounts of public lands that were given to the railroads and then resold, or raped and then traded to the government for new lands.

    The Vanderbilt fortune had also gained greatly from fraudulent maneuvers involving railroad securities and Cornelius's evasion of taxes. When all this was investigated after Cornelius's death, Morgan came to the Vanderbilt's rescue (managing to take control of their New York Central Railroad in the process).

    Knox persuaded Roosevelt that the anti-trust laws should be accompanied by increased regulation of business.

    He advocated and drafted federal statutes that gave his rich and powerful friends even more power and control over interstate commerce - setting rates and eliminating competition in restraint of trade - all under federal authority and with agents of the conglomerates appointed to and sitting on the governmental boards and commissions.

    This plan derived from and implemented a strategy set by Morgan and the other robber barons at a meeting in 1889.

    Knox continued in this vein as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, being appointed to a vacant seat by Pennsylvania's governor in 1904 at the behest of several powerful capitalists, including Carnegie's man, former client Frick (which showed they approved of Knox's handling of anti-trust matters as Attorney General).
    (contniued)
    Last edited by dchristie; 06-15-2007 at 03:41 AM.
    "The best case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
    -- Winston Churchill

  16. #16
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: Freedom To Fascism

    Knox, by now a multi-millionaire, was in the Senate when the Morgan-controlled financial Panic of 1907 hit, which led to a congressional inquiry into the monetary and banking systems.

    Senator Nelson Aldrich (father of the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and namesake and god-father of Nelson A. Rockefeller) led the inquiry producing the 1912 report that recommended a national bank (controlled and owned by the robber barons) and ultimately resulted in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, co-authored by Aldrich and Robert Owens.

    Owens later testified to Congress that the banking industry conspired to create financial panics like the one in 1907 in order to rouse the people to demand reform - reform that would be directed by, and to the benefit of, the very financial experts who had caused the panic.

    Knox resigned from the Senate and became Secretary of State under President Taft from Ohio in 1909.

    He was the most powerful figure in the Taft administration, and drew up the lists from which Taft appointed his other cabinet members, many of whom were intimately concerned with the giant corporations. He was Taft's primary confidante.

    Knox became active in organizing the international court at The Hague, and fought hard for the Rockefeller/Morgan-inspired concept of a League of Nations, although U.S. opposition to the Treaty of Versailles forced him to temper his public views on the League.

    He proclaimed the era of "Dollar Diplomacy," his legacy to U.S. foreign policy, under which the Secretary of State's office was used to promote and protect American commercial and industrial interests in foreign countries, especially in Latin America, but also in East Asia and even Europe.

    This period of U.S. imperialism featured the annexation of Hawaii in the 1890s at the request of American businesses there despite the unanimous opposition by Hawaiians; the taking of Cuba and the Philippines from the Spanish as well as from the native rebels whom the U.S had ostensibly come to assist in gaining their liberty (this included the massive slaughter of a hundred thousand Filipinos by the U.S Army in a war in which the news media was censored. (even William Randolph Hearst, who had helped instigate the war with Spain, was aghast and disgusted.)

    Then came the Honduras financial crisis of 1909, in which Knox brokered a deal for J.P. Morgan & Company to make huge loans to that country, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., and for American bankers to take control of the Honduras taxing authority (to ensure adequate cash flow to make the loan payments).

    Knox's diplomatic maneuvers resulted in the U.S. Navy being sent to support and give victory to rebel forces in Nicaragua, who then made arrangements, again devised by Knox, to give control of Nicaraguan taxing authority and tax collection to Americans.

    American bankers then immediately made big loans to Nicaragua, once again guaranteed by the U.S. government, providing a risk-free investment environment for Knox's banker friends.

    Knox tried to conduct the same kind of activity in the rest of Central America and much of South America as well, and used America's claim against the Chinese from the Boxer Rebellion to coerce China to deal with a syndicate of Harriman and his bankers Kuhn & Loeb, Morgan and his First National Bank, and the Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank, instead of with the British, French, and Germans, in a scheme to establish a round-the-world transportation system using American steamship and railroad lines.

    There was even action by Morgan's man in that syndicate, Henry Davidson, to supply arms to the Bolsheviks in hopes of gaining oil and commerce concessions in Russia if they were victorious.

    At the international level, Knox has been criticized for oafish and heavy-handed diplomacy that caused ill will and damaged the reputation of the United States worldwide.

    His conduct was more that of a huckster than a diplomat.

    Domestically, Knox's influence extended to the Supreme Court, where he succeeded in having Taft appoint three justices who were extremely sympathetic to the big business trusts: Devanter, Lamar, and Pitney. The first two of these had formerly had clients among the big corporate trusts, including the railroads.

    The 16th Amendment itself was given its decisive shove through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island (co-author of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913), who spoke for the "community of interest' of both Morgan and Rockefeller.

    This represented and led to an astonishing reversal of attitudes among the old-line big-business conservatives in the Senate, who had long staunchly opposed an income tax.

    Obviously, something was afoot to change their minds.

    It was that the robber barons had already figured out how to avoid the proposed income tax, especially through the establishment and use of foundations, the number of which grew from 18 in 1910 to 94 by 1920 and 267 by 1930.

    The super-rich have avoided the income tax ever since, leaving it to be paid instead by the middle and lower classes.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Deceit and fraud were, for the robber barons, standard operating procedures - among the numerous underhanded methods they typically employed to achieve their objectives.

    Knox had protected them from fraud charges many times.

    His term as Attorney General was itself a big fraud in regard to enforcement of the anti-trust laws, especially against former clients to whom he owed so much of his own professional success.

    Besides preying on the government with their fraudulent activities, the robber barons employed a strategy of locking in and stabilizing their advantageous positions by using government authority and regulations to reduce competition, keep prices at very profitable levels, control labor problems, minimize risk, and generally make themselves quite comfortable.

    They also expanded their scope of operations, including financing and extension of credit, to other countries and used government to aid them in these adventures.

    Knox, of course, was a key man, perhaps the key man, in the Administration in all of this, both as Attorney General and then as Secretary of State.

    J.P. Morgan seems to have been the real genius and visionary behind much of this strategy.

    His background was more oriented to finance, and his financial acumen enabled him to make inroads against the other robber barons on their own turfs - a robber baron's robber baron.

    He was regarded as more cultured and cosmopolitan than most of the others, and perhaps that is why he was able to envision and plan on such an international scale.

    His financial perspective helped him to see the benefits of making monetary loans to governments and securing them with strong and reliable methods of tax collection.

    One might wonder why Knox seemed to be in such a hurry in 1913 to declare the 16th amendment ratified.

    We can see that it was because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

    It was important to the banking interests that would be lending money to the U.S government that there be an assured flow of revenue, especially since the robber barons would be removing themselves from the income tax system.

    Just as an ordinary bank wants to know that a borrower who is given a mortgage has a cash flow adequate to meet the payments, so the banks comprising the Federal Reserve System wanted to be sure the federal government had a dependable method of tax collection in place to provide ample money to pay its debts to them.

    The income tax and the Federal Reserve are inextricably tied together; it was not mere coincidence that they happened in the same year. The robber barons, their bankers, and Knox had developed this concept and practiced it in Latin America, and in 1913 they were ready to apply it to the United States.


    In less than a month after proclaiming the 16th amendment ratified, Knox returned to private practice in Pittsburgh, resigning as Secretary of State so that the new president, Woodrow Wilson, could appoint his own man to the post.

    One gets the distinct impression that getting the amendment through the ratification process had indeed been his ultimate goal; he wasn't just a disinterested public official objectively administering the procedure.

    If he hadn't declared it ratified before leaving office, there was no way to know or control what his successor would do.

    The title of this piece asks whether it's credible that Knox would commit fraud in ratifying the 16th amendment.

    We leave it to readers to decide for themselves, but for us, it seems like a "no-brainer." He would and he did.

    *Taft's brand of republicanism had upset Roosevelt enough that the latter ran again for President in 1912. His third party "Bull Moose" candidacy spoiled Taft's re-election, and Democrat Wilson won.
    .
    "The best case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
    -- Winston Churchill

Similar Threads

  1. Freedom From Religion - Part 3 - Freedom on Trial
    By mike pulcinella in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 08:52 AM
  2. Could Fascism Rise In The US?
    By Yeah Well Fine Then in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 05:13 AM
  3. From Freedom to Fascism
    By David Ben-Ariel in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-26-2008, 12:46 PM
  4. America: Freedom to Fascism - UNBELIEVABLE MOVIE!! CHECK IT INSIDE!
    By FreedomFromLies in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 12:44 AM
  5. Fascism Anyone?
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2005, 08:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
absent, acted, advocates, agent, alcohol, allowing, ame, amendment, american, apartment, approval, approved, attempts, authority, authorized, bankers, baro, barons, bill, boot, brown, bryan, bull, buster, cabinet, cash, catch, causing, central, certified, chance, chase, circuit, clark, clients, code, collected, college students, commissioner, communism, complete, congressional, cons, conveniently, corporate, corporation, cover, credit, criminals, crisis, debt, declared, deleted, district, documentation, doesn, dollar, dont, drew, electio, eme, environment, error, establishment, experts, extended, fail, first amendment, foreign, fortune, freedom, friend, fund, funded, gas, give, grace, held, higher, history, html, huge, ice, idiots, important, include, individuals, induce, industry, influence, information, institution, investigated, involving, iowa, irs, john, joint, league, learn, legacy, legal, lie, lies, line, lis, loans, local, lol, loves, manager, mankind, maryland, massachusetts, mea, meet, members, mental, misinformation, misinformed, monetary, money, monster, mortgage, multi, nation, national, needed, notice, notification, office, online, opposite, oregon, owned, pacific, pays, pennsylvania, photos, pissed, platform, posted, power, prepared, prices, problem, productive, profit, protected, proves, public, racket, raise, raw, rea, real, reason, rebellion, reform, regular, reliable, research, respect, response, returns, riots, risk, robber, robert, sale, scale, secretary, selling, serve, sho, shouldn, shows, son, spreading, stranger, strength, submit, succeed, sued, summary, super, systems, tax, taxpayers, teach, thinks, totally, transportation, treason, treats, u.s., u.s. army, u.s. government, united states, version, victory, waiting, western, wilson, won, word, worked, working

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •