Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail Board index ‹ TAX FRAUD, TAX PROTESTERS, & SOVEREIGN CITIZEN SCAMS ‹ Tax Protestors, Pure Trusts, and Other Stupid De-Tax Schemes & Scams ‹ US Search this topic… Search 26 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1 2 Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by LPC» Tue Nov05, 2013 2:16 pm Or at least thats what the plaintiff in this case believed. Now if the IRS would only respond to his FOIA request. Robert V. Justice v. IRS, No. 1:10-cv-00568 (U.S.D.C. D.C. 7/13/2011), affd No. 11-5232 (D.C. Cir. 12/5/2012), cert. den. No. 13-427 (11/4/2013). (Yes, the plaintiffs name is Justice. I should get points for not titling this Justice Denied or some variation.) This is the (somewhat truncated) opinion of the District Court: ROBERT V. JUSTICE, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action 10-00568 (HHK) MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert V. Justice, proceeding pro se, brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Justice seeks to compel the release of a letter purportedly written by the Commissioner of the IRS in 1985. After searching its records, the IRS did not find the requested letter. Before the Court is the IRS’s motion for summary judgment and Justice’s opposition thereto. Upon consideration of the IRS’s motion, the opposition thereto, and the summary judgment record, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted. I. BACKGROUND Justice’s FOIA request seeks “a letter sent by Commissioner Roscoe L. Egger, Jr. of the IRS to all district directors dated April 4, 1985.” Compl., Ex. A at 1. The letter Justice seeks purportedly advises IRS officials that they should issue a tax refund to individuals upon request because the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. See Justice Decl., Ex. 1. In response to Justice’s request, Sharon House, the FOIA coordinator for the Commissioner’s office, located five boxes of records from the Commissioner’s reading file. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Decl. of Sharon House) (“House Decl.”) ¶¶ 10–11. House searched those documents because the “reading file generally consists of correspondence written by the Commissioner” and “I knew that it was likely that if the requested document existed, it would probably be located” in that file. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. House reviewed the boxes but did not find the letter sought by Justice. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. House also asked an IRS librarian to attempt to locate the letter; the librarian responded by informing House that “[t]here were things from that month, but nothing from that day, nor signed by the Commissioner.” Id. ¶ 13. On May 11, 2005, the IRS informed Justice that it could not locate the requested letter. Compl., Ex. B. Justice appealed this finding, but was informed by the IRS that the agency had already conducted an adequate search. Id., Exs. C, D. This suit followed. II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard [snip] B. The IRS is Entitled to Summary Judgment An agency may submit affidavits or declarations to show that its search for responsive records “us[ed] methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The affidavits or declarations must be “reasonably detailed” and “set[] forth the search terms and type of search performed, and aver[] that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched.” Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Conclusory statements asserting that the agency has reviewed all relevant files will not suffice. Id. In this case, the IRS argues that it fully complied with its obligations under FOIA to execute an adequate search. In support of its argument, the IRS provides House’s declaration describing the agency’s search for the letter sought by Justice. See generally House Decl. Justice responds with a declaration of his own, stating that he is unable to present any facts in opposition to the IRS’s motion because he has not been allowed to pursue discovery. He also avers that House’s declaration should not be accorded a presumption of good faith because the letter he seeks to disclose was “ordered destroyed.” Justice Decl. ¶ 4. Justice’s arguments lack merit. The record establishes that the IRS conducted searches that were reasonably expected to produce the requested information. See Steinberg, 23 F.3d at 551. In particular, House states in her declaration that she and an IRS librarian searched for the letter in locations that House reasonably believed would contain letters authored by the Commissioner during the year in which Justice contends the letter was penned. House Decl. ¶¶ 9–13. The declaration is detailed and specific, allowing the Court to conclude that the relevant files were likely searched. See Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 890. With respect to Justice’s argument that House’s declaration is not entitled to a presumption of good faith because the letter was “ordered destroyed,” the Court cannot agree. Declarations such as House’s are accorded a presumption of good faith. SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1200. The presumption cannot be rebutted by “purely speculative claims.” Id. Justice’s contention that the requested letter was “ordered destroyed” amounts to a “purely speculative claim,” as he does not provide any evidence in support of this assertion. Furthermore, the fact that the IRS did not locate the requested letter does not advance Justice’s case. An agency’s search will not be presumed inadequate simply because the agency did not find the requested documents. Boyd v. Criminal Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 391 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court finds that the IRS complied with its search obligations. C. Justice is Not Entitled to Discovery Justice requests discovery under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,[1] arguing that discovery would raise genuine issues of material fact. In FOIA actions, however, discovery is disfavored. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 185 F. Supp. 2d 54, 65 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 892; Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68). Courts permit discovery in FOIA cases where a “plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that the agency acted in bad faith.” Voinche v. FBI, 412 F. Supp. 2d 60, 72 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994)). Justice asserts that the requested letter was “ordered destroyed.” Justice Decl. ¶ 4. As the Court indicates above, such an assertion is purely speculative, as Justice has failed to provide any evidence in support of this contention. Because discovery in FOIA cases is the exception and not the rule, and because Justice has failed to adduce any evidence that the IRS has acted in bad faith, the Court denies his discovery request. III. CONCLUSION As set forth above, the IRS has demonstrated that it conducted searches reasonably expected to produce the requested letter. Accordingly, the IRS’s motion for summary judgment will be granted. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. United States District Judge [1] Since Justice responded to the IRS’s motion for summary judgment, Rule 56(f) has been recodified “without substantial change” as Rule 56(d). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) 2010 amend. cmt. (2010). Dan Evans Foreman of the Unified Citizens Grand Jury for Pennsylvania (And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal/dan/tpfaq.html) Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. LPC Trusted Keeper ofthe All True FAQ Posts: 5055 Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am Location: Earth Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by webhick » Tue Nov05, 2013 2:23 pm Oh, we cant find your fictional letter. Case dismissed, charges dropped! Or not... “He that is taught only by himself has afool for a master.” - Hunter S. Thompson webhick Illuminati Obfuscation: BlackOpsDiv Posts: 3536 Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by fortinbras» Tue Nov05, 2013 2:39 pm This is the purported text of the secret memo, gotten from another tax scofflaw website. Youd think that if they could quote the entire document verbatim then someone had a xerox of it which this guy could submit to the court. If this went to all district directors then there would have been more than a dozen copies, and you can bet some of the directors (and others) would have kept xeroxes for themselves. ------------------------Secret IRS Memo of 1985 Admits Income Tax is Illegal ---------------------------------------------------- Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury April 4, 1985 TO: All District Directors FR: Roscoe L. Egger, Jr. Commissioner of Internal Revenue On March 5, 1985, a charge of tax evasion was filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, Indiana, by U.S. Attorney George Duncan. The charges were dismissed. The defense attorney, Lowell Becraft of Hunstville, Alabama, presented irrefutable evidence that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified. This amendment, which established the income tax, was signed into law despite serious defects. In reality, only two states ratified the amendment, and ratification requires 36 states to be valid. The effect of this is such that every tax paid to the Treasury since 1913, is due and refundable to every citizen and business. The official position of the Service is, as it always has been, to aid and assist the citizens of the United States. We will not publish or advertise this finding as a total immediate refund would cause a serious drain on the Treasury. For those citizens who become aware of this finding and apply for a total refund, expedite their refund documents as quickly and as quietly as possible. A simple 1040X form will suffice until a new form is designed and printed. Advise each of your managers that they are not to discuss this situation with anyone. There will be no more written communications regarding this and you are to destroy this memorandum. The Secretary of the Treasury assures me that there will be no reduction in the workforce as this refunding activity will take a minimum of five years to complete. Further information will be provided to you as need arises. (signed) Roscoe L. Egger, Jr. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ------------------------ If we take this seriously, then Roscoe Eggers did not know the distinction between ratification and adoption of an amendment, among other things. Eggers was IRS Commissioner until the end of April 1986 and he died in 1999. Its a little tough to imagine that a tax evasion case was begun on March 5th, 1985, and was decisively ended less than a full month later, even before the (unnamed!) defendants answer was due, with the govt caving in instantly and without at least trying to conjure up a response. Lowell Becraft is not one to keep his light under a bushel but he has NEVER claimed to have this irrefutable proof, and he has better sense than to trot out the Law That Never Was argument. Lastedited by fortinbras on Tue Nov05, 2013 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total. fortinbras PrincepsWooloosia Posts: 2693 Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by notorial dissent » Tue Nov05, 2013 2:42 pm So, if justice doesnt already have a copy of this letter, then how does he know it exists, his ouji board, his magic eight ball, tea leaves, what?? Alternatively, if the letter was ordered destroyed, then why does he think that FOI request is going to find it??? The level of dissonance here is painful. It sounds like it should definitely been dismissed as being slef admittedly frivolous and pointless. The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it. notorial dissent ABalthazar of Quatloosian Truth Posts: 6034 Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by LPC» Tue Nov05, 2013 2:47 pm I was curious about what kind of mythology might surround this alleged letter, but could find nothing about it on the Internet. Which is itself odd. You can find *thousands* of references to the fact that the Queen of England is actually a shape-shifting alien reptile, but *nothing* about a simple letter from the IRS admitting that the income tax is unconstitutional? Very suspicious. Almost like someone is suppressing the information. Dan Evans Foreman of the Unified Citizens Grand Jury for Pennsylvania (And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal/dan/tpfaq.html) Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. LPC Trusted Keeper ofthe All True FAQ Posts: 5055 Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am Location: Earth Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Randall » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:16 pm LPC wrote: You can find *thousands* of references to the fact that the Queen of England is actually a shape-shifting alien reptile. I was going to say there are 3.74 million such references on the interwebs, but then I refreshed and there were 3.86 million of them. Stupidty multiplies quickly. Randall Warden ofthe Quatloosian Sane Asylum Posts: 239 Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:20 pm Location: The Deep South, so deep Im almost in Rhode Island. Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by operabuff » TueNov 05, 2013 3:56 pm I saw a copy of this purported memo sometime around 1990. It gave me a pretty good laugh. It was an obvious cut and paste job, with the spurious text placed onto IRS memo paper and bearing a facsimile signature from the Commissioner. I particularly like the procedure outlined whereby the Service doesnt publicly announce their determination that the income tax is invalid, but will grant a refund to any citizen whos smart enough to come forward on their own. Needless to say, even if Eggars had somehow lost his mind and signed such a memo, it still wouldnt help the taxpayer. The Commissioner doesnt have any power to determine what the law is. Thats left to Congress, the Courts, and to the extent that regulations are law, Treasury. operabuff Cannoneer Posts: 96 Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:14 pm Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by notorial dissent » Tue Nov05, 2013 4:43 pm I still love the pure frivolity of of someone doing and FOI request on a document that was supposedly destroyed.i mean, what does he really want? The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it. notorial dissent ABalthazar of Quatloosian Truth Posts: 6034 Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by operabuff » TueNov 05, 2013 5:27 pm I havent researched this persons past history - but presumably he would like a copy so that he can argue that the Commissioners alleged concession is good for all time. Sort of like the letters of transit in Casablanca - cannot be rescinded, even questioned. The letters of transit really wouldnt have helped Victor Lazslo if Rick hadnt gunned down Major Strasser. operabuff Cannoneer Posts: 96 Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:14 pm Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by webhick » Tue Nov05, 2013 5:58 pm Randall wrote: LPC wrote: You can find *thousands* of references to the fact that the Queen of England is actually a shape-shifting alien reptile. I was going to say there are 3.74 million such references on the interwebs, but then I refreshed and there were 3.86 million of them. Stupidty multiplies quickly. Thats pretty much th basis for Idiocracy. “He that is taught only by himself has afool for a master.” - Hunter S. Thompson webhick Illuminati Obfuscation: BlackOpsDiv Posts: 3536 Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:18 pm LPC wrote: Or at least thats what the plaintiff in this case believed. Now if the IRS would only respond to his FOIA request. Robert V. Justice v. IRS, No. 1:10-cv-00568 (U.S.D.C. D.C. 7/13/2011), affd No. 11-5232 (D.C. Cir. 12/5/2012), cert. den. No. 13-427 (11/4/2013). (Yes, the plaintiffs name is Justice. I should get points for not titling this Justice Denied or some variation.) The preffered term, as requested in the pleadings below, is Captain Justice; loweringthebar.net/2013/11/c ... stice.html YOUREALL PERVERTS! YOURE ALL PERVERTS! - Freeman David Lange Smith addressing the court at his New Westminster Provincial Court hearing, Jan. 22,2014. Burnaby49 Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians Posts: 1749 Joined: Thu Oct27, 2011 3:45 am Location: The Evergreen Playground Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by fortinbras» Tue Nov05, 2013 7:07 pm Captain Justice appears to be Drew Justice, a bona fide lawyer in Tennessee. Robert Volney Justice on the other hand, appears to be a non-lawyer, living in Beverly Hills, Calif., and was adjudged a vexatious litigant by the California courts back in 2003, and unable to shake that description in 2009. At one point he was writing his name with the punctuation in the middle so that his case was indexed as Volney v. Superior Court for County of San Diego (9th Cir, Dec 15, 2004) 114 Fed.Appx 944. In 1984 he was nailed for DUI, People v. Justice (Cal.Super. Jan. 28, 1985) 168 Cal.App.3d Supp 1, 215 Cal.Rptr 234. Apparently he was at one point a guest of the State of California because he filed an unsuccessful habeas corpus petition, ca. 2003. He has been suing the IRS off and on for the last decade, most of the decisions involve an FOIA request which did not produce what he wanted (it is not further described but maybe this imaginary Eggers memo). The closest I can find to a 1985 decision on the ratification and adoption of the 16th Amendment is US v. House (WD Mich 6/7/1985) 617 F.Supp 237, 57 AFTR2d 700, 87 USTC ¶9562 affd 787 F.2d 593 , (Becraft represented the defendant, and one of the authors of The Law That Never Was testified for the defense) which the court described as the first time the issue had been litigated, ...... scholar.google/scholar_case? case=9878075763559263771 ... and which went solidly against the defendant, the court holding very firmly (as all other courts also have) that the 16th Amendment was properly and validly part of the US Constitution. So there was no such court decision as described in the imaginery Eggers memo. fortinbras PrincepsWooloosia Posts: 2693 Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Famspear » TueNov05, 2013 8:02 pm fortinbras wrote: ...The closest I can find to a 1985 decision on the ratification and adoption of the 16th Amendment is [b]US v. House (WD Mich 6/7/1985) 617 F.Supp 237, 57 AFTR2d 700, 87 USTC ¶9562 affd 787 F.2d 593..... The two cases I always cite are House, decided on June 7, 1985, and United States v. Wojtas, 611 F. Supp. 118 (N.D. Ill. 1985), decided on May 10, 1985: scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?q ... 09&scilh=0 I dont know which of the two cases was commenced first, though. There are of course a few earlier court cases in which the courts mentioned the non-ratification issue, but apparently did not actually render a decision on the issue: United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975) and Ex parte Tammen, 438 F. Supp. 349 (N.D. Tex. 1977). EDIT: Also, there is a separate line of 16th Amendment non-ratification argument cases, this one involving the silly Ohio was not a state and therefore the Amendment could not be ratified argument. These cases date back into the 1970s: 1. Ivey v. United States, 76-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9682, 38 Amer. Fed. Tax Rep. 2d 76-5909 (E.D. Wisc. 1976). 2. McMullen v. United States, 77-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9142, 39 Amer. Fed. Tax Rep. 2d 77-628 (W.D. Tenn. 1976). 3. McCoy v. Alexander, 77-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9504, 40 Amer. Fed. Tax Rep. 2d 77-5299 (S.D. Tex. 1977). 4. Lorre v. Alexander, 77-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9672 (W.D. Tex. 1977). 5. McKenney v. Blumenthal, 79-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9346, 43 Amer. Fed. Tax Rep. 2d 960 (N.D. Ga. 1979). ...and, in the 1980s: 6. Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 85-1 U.S. Tax. Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9109 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1985). ...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...Larry Williams [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons Famspear Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax Posts: 6258 Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm Location: Texas Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by JamesVincent » Tue Nov05, 2013 8:02 pm Correct me if Im wrong, (please... I am not an attorney or accountant) but didnt all the 16th do was remove the requirement for apportionment? There were already clauses in the Constitution for direct and excise taxes and tariffs were there not? Its so heart warming when you get tosee the little ones slowly tentatively move out of the nest and out in to the great big world out there, ready to get started on their very own epic fail. Notorial Dissent JamesVincent ACouncilor of theKabosh Posts: 2274 Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Famspear » TueNov05, 2013 8:06 pm JamesVincent wrote: Correct me if Im wrong, (please... I am not an attorney or accountant) but didnt all the 16th do was remove the requirement for apportionment? There were already clauses in the Constitution for direct and excise taxes and tariffs were there not? Exactly. The Amendment removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes. EDIT: From the United States Tax Court: .....since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax. ---from Sortillon v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. (CCH) 1097, T.C. Memo 1979-281, CCH Dec. 36,194(M), Docket No. 2108-79 (July 26, 1979). And, from the decision in another case before the United States Tax Court: Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. ---from Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, CCH Dec. 41,031 (1984). More from the U.S. Tax Court: At the trial, Mr. Wikoff [the taxpayer] also raised the issue of the constitutionality of the Federal income tax. He argues that as a graduated direct tax on income, the Federal income tax statute was not within the intended scope of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. According to him, the framers of the 16th Amendment envisioned an indirect excise tax on corporations, such as that contained in the Tariff Act of 1909. Since the petitioner is an individual sovereign citizen and the Federal income tax is a direct, progressive tax, he claims not to be subject to such tax. It has long been settled that the Federal income tax is within the scope of the 16th Amendment and is constitutional. See, e.g., Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. [1 USTC ¶ 4], 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. [1 USTC ¶ 8], 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Cupp v. Commissioner [Dec. 33,459], 65 T.C. 68 (1975), affd. without published opinion 559 F. 2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977). The whole purpose of the 16th Amendment, as stated by the Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., supra at 18, was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Thus, since the ratification of the 16th Amendment, it is immaterial, with respect to Federal income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax.Mr. Wikoff relied on the Supreme Courts decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), but the effect of that decision has been nullified by the enactment of the 16th Amendment. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., supra. --from Wikoff v. Commissioner, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 1539, T.C. Memo. 1978-372 (1978) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). ...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...Larry Williams [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons Famspear Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax Posts: 6258 Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm Location: Texas Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by JamesVincent » Tue Nov05, 2013 8:15 pm Famspear wrote: JamesVincent wrote: Correct me if Im wrong, (please... I am not an attorney or accountant) but didnt all the 16th do was remove the requirement for apportionment? There were already clauses in the Constitution for direct and excise taxes and tariffs were there not? Exactly. The Amendment removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes. I know Im probably going to regret asking but... What would then be the point of arguing that it wasnt ratified? You would still owe taxes since Congress was granted that power in the beginning, The 16th just changed how it was to be done. Its so heart warming when you get tosee the little ones slowly tentatively move out of the nest and out in to the great big world out there, ready to get started on their very own epic fail. Notorial Dissent JamesVincent ACouncilor of theKabosh Posts: 2274 Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Famspear » TueNov05, 2013 8:23 pm JamesVincent wrote: Famspear wrote: JamesVincent wrote: Correct me if Im wrong, (please... I am not an attorney or accountant) but didnt all the 16th do was remove the requirement for apportionment? There were already clauses in the Constitution for direct and excise taxes and tariffs were there not? Exactly. The Amendment removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes. I know Im probably going to regret asking but... What would then be the point of arguing that it wasnt ratified? You would still owe taxes since Congress was granted that power in the beginning, The 16th just changed how it was to be done. There is no point. The tax protesters simply dont understand what they are reading, or they refuse to accept what they are reading. The whole non-ratification argument developed in the 1970s, based on a misunderstanding of the language of the Amendment and an inability or refusal, or the part of tax protesters, to perform proper legal analysis or accept proper legal analysis. ...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...Larry Williams [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons Famspear Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax Posts: 6258 Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm Location: Texas Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Famspear » TueNov05, 2013 8:33 pm The Court stated that the taxpayer: ....asserts that the requested letter was “ordered destroyed.” .......As the Court indicates above, such an assertion is purely speculative, as Justice has failed to provide any evidence in support of this contention.... The phony claim that IRS Commissioner Roscoe Egger wrote or issued such a letter goes in the same category as claims by tax protesters that protesters win cases on tax protester arguments all the time, but that the court records in such cases are supposedly suppressed or covered up. ...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...Larry Williams [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons Famspear Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax Posts: 6258 Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm Location: Texas Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by AndyK » Tue Nov05, 2013 9:12 pm Becrafts web site can be accessed via this address. One would think that, if Becraft had participated in such a significant case, he would be spreading every significant detail -- including photocopies of relevant documents --across the Internet. Instead, the only reference to the invalidity or non-ratification of the 16th (at least as far as I could find) on Lowells site was an external lilnk to The Law That Never Was. Applying Occams Razor; Justices pursuit was Quixotic. Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders AndyK Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus Posts: 978 Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm Location: South Carolina Re: Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified by Famspear » TueNov05, 2013 9:14 pm The nitwits claim that various states that were reported to have ratified the Amendment really didnt ratify it. I have yet to hear any nitwit tax protester explain why, from 1913 (when the Amendment was ratified) to the year 1920, not one such state legislature ever objected toSecretary of State Knoxs certificationof the ratification of the Amendment. From 1921 to 1929, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 1930 to 1939, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 1940 to 1949, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 1950 to 1959, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 1960 to 1969, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 1970 to 1979, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. Convicted fraudster Bill Bensons book was published in the mid-1980s -- and yet, from 1980 to 1989, STILL.... not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 1990 to 1999, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. From 2000 to 2009, not one such state legislature ever objected to the Secretary of States certification of the ratification. And from 2010 to this very day, not one state legislature has ever objected to the supposedly false certification of the ratification. Yet, a few wackadoosters still choose to believe -- or at least CLAIM to believe -- in the writings of a convicted fraudster and notorious liar: Bill Benson. Until January 2008, Bensons web site stated: After serving time in federal prison for not paying his United States income taxes, Bill Benson still does not pay income taxes and yet our federal government chooses not to arrest him. Why? Because now he can use this book, which he has written : THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS in his defense. That was a lie. The Benson book was actually published in the 1980s, before Bensons conviction. Benson himself was later convicted of tax crimes -- despite his attempt to use his own non-ratification argument IN HIS OWN CRIMINAL TRIAL. Yet, here he was, over twenty years later in 2008, apparently trying to induce people to believe that he had been convicted and served his time BEFORE he wrote the book. Here he was, trying to induce people to believe that because he had written the book, the government chooses not to arrest him. In other places, Benson falsely claimed that others could use the information in his book to avoid criminal liability. ...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...Larry Williams [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons Famspear Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax Posts: 6258 Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm Location: Texas Next 26 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1 2 Return to US Board index All times are UTC [ DST ] The team • Commissioner Admitted 16th Not Ratified Display posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending Go Jumpto: US Go WHO IS ONLINE Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests Powered byphpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008 phpBB Group Quatloosstyle based on Glacier Style designed by Ika © 2007, 2008 ShadowFlamesDevelopment Search… Search Advanced search Post areply Post areply Login Register Forum Search
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:05:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015