I want to cement in your minds that the United States District Courts are not Article III courts but are Article IV Territorial Courts. Remember the 16th Amendment did not amend anything.
Look at this excert from POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
page 604
"The law of congress is also invalid in that it authorizes a tax upon the salaries of the judges of the courts of the United States, against the declaration of the constitution that their compensation shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. The law declares that a tax of 2 per cent. shall be assessed, levied, and collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on within the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever. The annual salary of a justice of the supreme court of the United States is $10,000, and this act levies a tax of 2 per cent. on $6, 000 of this amount, and imposes a penalty upon those who do not make the payment or return the amount for taxation."
The income tax is a tax on corporate profits and that includes the strawman. After all what is a corporation but a man of straw? If a flesh and blood man uses no strawman it would be a direct tax and would require apportionment!!!!
If what I say is true and the strawman is the one liable for a income tax, the man behind it is being taxed indirectly, that does not require apportionment, only uniformity.
This is why the 16th Amendment amended nothing and if your "judge" is liable for income tax he can not possibly be a real judge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrg
Aaah, thanks much!!
June 2005 ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Schulz v. IRS barring IRS from enforcing any administrative enforcement action without first filing suit to enforce such administrative action in federal district court and providing the enforcement target an opportunity for a full, adversarial Article III judicial hearing.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...DENIED6-05.pdf |
