03-27-2008, 04:36 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,745
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mertensv16
... True, the Supreme Court held in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) that a tax on federal judges' income was unconstitutional, but that case was overruled in O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). The bottom line is that federal judges, like everyone else, are liable for income tax.
|
The crucial issue in those cases was not the legality of the tax but Article III, sec. 1 states that the compensation paid to judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." In these cases, the judges had taken office before the enactment of the Social Security tax and the issue was whether withholding that new tax from the judges' paychecks constituted a "diminishment" of their compensation. The final word was that judges had to pay any new taxes that applied to the entire public.
A subsequent case held that judges already in office could not be nailed for a new impost that was imposed only on members of the legal profession, because that was not applied to the general public.
|
03-27-2008, 07:20 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,090
|
|
|
I would think....
... the Supremes ruled in such fashion to prevent the subjects (citizens) from becoming restless.
If judges did not have to pay Social Security Tax, why should I?
=D
-netwrkranger
|
03-27-2008, 07:32 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,745
|
|
|
But it was decided that the judges DID have to pay Social Security.
|
03-27-2008, 07:37 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,090
|
|
|
I understood.
And I am saying they did that to not give people any ideas about revolting due to perceived inequity.
- netwrkranger
|
03-27-2008, 09:07 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 315
|
|
|
Shoonra, it's very simple: when the courts rule against tax protestors, it's because they're corrupt lackeys of the IRS who realize that because the government pays their salaries, it's in their own economic interest to hand down a pro-government decision. But when they rule against their own self-interest, it's not because they're suddenly not corrupt any more, it's simply to keep the mob at bay.
|
04-17-2008, 02:24 AM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,212
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlie Blue
I've read all posts in this thread to which many are powerfully informative but, ezrhythm, I wonder if you can expound on your statement a little more.
|
When you sign a W4 you are giving permission for your employer to become a Withholding Agent thus claiming that you are a "taxpayer".
Since the ficticious courts only deal in fictions and presumptions, it is neccessary to rebutt circumstances that report presumptions of you.
__________________
Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.
|
04-17-2008, 06:28 AM
|
|
Mental Jujitsu
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 711
|
|
|
fiction?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ezrhythm
When you sign a W4 you are giving permission for your employer to become a Withholding Agent thus claiming that you are a "taxpayer".
Since the ficticious courts only deal in fictions and presumptions, it is neccessary to rebutt circumstances that report presumptions of you.
|
When those "fictitious" courts order you sent to prison, whose butt goes into the cell...you or your "legal fiction straw man"?
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
|
04-17-2008, 01:09 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,212
|
|
|
AWAY FROM HERE SPIRIT OF ANTI SUI JURIS!!!
No one goes to jail, doesn't even see one of your defacto court rooms. MORE FREEDOM! MORE FUN FOR EVERYONE!
__________________
Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
