judicial supremecy and the legitimacy of 16th amendment

[JamesVincent]

I'm sure the older members remember fondly Jameson3171. A search of Vieira turns up 3 pages of results including a topic started by that wonderful Constitutional scholar.

viewtopic.php?p=184167#p184167

He used Vieira's crackpotchery to try to win the sites reward.

[wserra]

You probably know of Edwin Vieira.

I have heard of Vieira. He is/was a lawyer. His opinions are worth no more where it counts - in courts - than are yours, or mine, or Jeffrey Dahmer's. Quoting him (as opposed to something authoritative, such as a statute or court opinion) therefore indicates only that the quoter likes what he has to say, and in finding him has indulged his/her confirmation bias.

I found . . . related concepts that had me quite excited.

In other words, you indulged your confirmation bias. Perhaps. the next time you wish to discuss law, try starting with law.

As I read some paragraphs of Vieira, I cannot find where this "enrolled bill" rule is acknowledged in his speech.

Well, then, it must not exist.

First, the judiciary. Ah, the judiciary. The inferior Federal courts, I'm not saying that to be derogatory, that's the constitutional term, right? The inferior courts ... say that the invalidity of the "16th Amendment" raises a "political question" which is not justiciable, but belongs exclusively to Congress.

Wrong out of the starting gate. In fact, no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court has held - in so many words - that ratification of a constitutional amendment is a political question.

We think that in accordance with this historic precedent the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.

Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939). Last I checked, the Supreme Court was not an "inferior court". True, Coleman dealt with the 14th Amendment, not the 16th. Perhaps Vieira would argue that, to satisfy him, the Supreme Court must rule on each of the 27 amendments individually.

The doctrine of political questions is another of those rather imaginative patterns that the courts have cut from whole cloth in order to avoid being confronted with issues that they would rather not hear.

I'm sure the Supreme Court values his opinion.

I don't think we need to go any further with this guy. Apparently you don't agree.

The premise of this tax . . . is precisely the master-slave theory of wealth generation. . . . In any event, that particular issue has to be settled.

It is settled.

Mathes argues before us that dismissal of his petition was inappropriate because, inter alia, the Tax Court had a "staggering number of detailed issues to resolve." Brief for Appellant at 1. The substantive merits of a claim are of course irrelevant to the propriety of a dismissal for failure to prosecute -- but the irrelevance of the 57 "detailed issues" listed by Mathes is in any event exceeded by their absurdity. As part of his "7th Issue," Mathes alleges that he is entitled to a jury trial, although, as we noted above, Mathes was informed by the Fifth Circuit that he has no such right. Mathes's "55th Issue" is entitled "Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Dollars By Law," which is apparently a revival of the same ludicrous argument the Fifth Circuit rejected. We are not certain what to make of Mathes's "30th Issue -- IRS Makes War On Citizens" or his "57th Issue -- Tax Slavery." The remainder of Mathes's brief consists in large part of "arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years." Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984). Cases rejecting claims identical to many of those made by Mathes, and in some instances characterizing those claims as "patently frivolous," "preposterous and nearly silly," "baseless," or "ludicrous," include Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471, 472-75 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1985); Sauers v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 64, 68-69 & n.6 (3rd Cir. 1985); Martin v. Commissioner, 756 F.2d 38, 40 (6th Cir. 1985); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981).

Mathes v. Commissioner, 788 F.2d 33, 35 (DC Cir. 1986). And many, many other cases.

This supports my previous assertion that Peymon Mottahedah is motivated not by money, but by being free of slavery.

If you really believe this, then you, Vieira and Mottahedeh are not just wrong idiots, but offensive idiots. Comparing the income tax with slavery is akin to comparing contemporary US politicians with Nazis. The latter trivializes the memory of six million Jews; the former trivializes the memory of twelve million slaves.

[Cspeter8]

viewtopic.php?p=184167#p184167
.

Thanks for that link, I read the entire thread with great interest.
I also saved thehttps://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm link. I may seek some feedback on that statememt from people with the other point of view.

[JamesVincent]

Thanks for that link, I read the entire thread with great interest.

I didn't bother to do any quick and easy research, such as using the search button, so I didn't know that everything I brought up, once again, has been covered. I don't really want to know what the law really is, I just want to find things that confirm what I already knew to be right. JamesVincent's cat can understand Constitutional law better than I can and is much more attractive.

Paraphrased slightly.

[Pottapaug1938]

viewtopic.php?p=184167#p184167
.

Thanks for that link, I read the entire thread with great interest.
I also saved thehttps://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm link. I may seek some feedback on that statememt from people with the other point of view.

Don't bother. We've talked with and about many of them in various Quatloos threads; and none of them could ever exhibit any substantive victories won by "the other point of view."

[The Observer]

...[N]one of them could ever exhibit any substantive victories at all won by "the other point of view."

There, fixed it for you.

This can't be stressed enough - none of any of the tax deniers and promoters, including Peymon, have victories whatsoever where it matters. None of them can demonstrate a win where the court, whether it was a district court, appellate or the Supreme Court, ruled that the scammers' arguments were correct and meant that the income tax was illegal. If they had, then we wouldn't be sitting here right now in a pointless discussion about whether any scammer's arguments are correct.

And this is the issue that cspeter8 can't seem to grasp or is outright refusing to acknowledge. Instead he keeps going back to the leaky barrel of claptrap that is irrelavant and tries to recycle it here. He keeps trying to prop up the reputation of Peymon as though this is a critical component to proving that taxes are illegal. But it doesn't matter how righteous Peymon may seem to cspeter8 since it has no bearing on the legality of taxes. What matters is what the courts say. And they say unilaterally that Peymon is wrong.

[JamesVincent]

I wanted to make another point, because I don't like loose ends or dangling participles.

As Famspear pointed out several years ago, in another inane and redundant thread, the "16th not ratified" theory did not even appear until the 1970's. I believe the first case he mentioned was US v Scott in 1975. 62 years after the 16th amendment was acknowledged to be ratified by Philander Knox. So in 62 years no one said "Hey, are we sure we got all these signatures in?" or "What happened to that 2219 form that Missouri was gonna send in?" 62 years of ongoing tax court, 62 years of Congress legislating tax laws, 62 years of politicians politicking on taxes, and 62 years of extremely smart tax lawyers working for very wealthy clients looking for loopholes.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-docu ... -amendment

In all of those years no one had any reason to question whether or not the 16th was ratified. The case law stated, very explicitly, that the amendment process was overseen by Congress and all the appropriate rules were followed. The i's were dotted and the t's were crossed. The appropriate person, the Secretary of State, made the appropriate determination at the appropriate time. It was settled law, no reason to doubt it. And yet.......

62 years later "Oh, it wasn't ratified correctly." It wasn't an attorney that made that argument. It wasn't a judge neither. Nor a politician. It was an acknowledged "tax resistance leader" who made that original argument. Someone with no training in either law or government. Yet, somehow, he found a way to twist the process and claim that the 16th was not properly ratified. Did he do it for his fellow citizens? No. He did it to get out of his own tax issues after refusing to file for years.

The question is dead, buried and rotted.

[Burnaby49]

Same, essentially, in Canada. I don't remember the exact instance or citation but it was a court case involving a tax matter where someone argued that the Canadian Income Tax Act had not been legally passed by parliament because they had missed some trivial procedural step under parliament's internal rules on approving potential legislation. Parliament has numerous rules regarding the process to pass legislation, first reading, second reading, whatever, and one had been skipped when they voted on the Act. It took the judge two paragraphs to dismiss the argument. He said that parliament's internal rules are whatever parliament chooses them to be and if they'd skipped one or two that was parliament's prerogative. As long as the legislation was passed by a vote of parliament the process by which it got to a vote was totally irrelevant.

[Cspeter8]

This supports my previous assertion that Peymon Mottahedah is motivated not by money, but by being free of slavery.

If you really believe this, then you, Vieira and Mottahedeh are not just wrong idiots, but offensive idiots. Comparing the income tax with slavery is akin to comparing contemporary US politicians with Nazis. The latter trivializes the memory of six million Jews; the former trivializes the memory of four million slaves.

Wserra as I read your post, I found myself agreeing with all your arguments. Every one I found persuasive, except this last paragraph, where clearly you totally stopped caring about being persuasive. I conclude this because you entered the domain of using perjoratives to describe me. That's what you feel is the thing to do. More power to you, if it works for you.

There is a slavery aspect to the income tax, and there are similarities to Nazis and some of the genocide of ethic groups that some US politicians have been accomplices to having committed. The particulars are political, which is, I think, banned from this site. Which raises the point that it is quite difficult to openly debate the character of Peymon on this website because I believe it lies in a realm which is beyond case law and within the realm of polical policy. Although I do think Peymon may want to suppress knowledge if he could, of the tax judgement against him for $93,000 that he cannot seem to make go away. Yes Peymons arguments in courts of law clearly do not work.

[JamesVincent]

There is a slavery aspect to the income tax, and there are similarities to Nazis and some of the genocide of ethic groups that some US politicians have been accomplices to having committed. The particulars are political, which is, I think, banned from this site.

Thanks for proving Wes right with your own words.

slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/slaver ... 20persons.

Yeah, just like paying income tax.

Which raises the point that it is quite difficult to openly debate the character of Peymon on this website because I believe it lies in a realm which is beyond case law and within the realm of polical policy.

There is absolutely nothing political about calling a scammer a scammer.


And, once again, a comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the IRC or the 16th Amendment in a thread that you yourself started dealing with the legality of the 16th Amendment.



edit: fixed something

[Pottapaug1938]

There is a slavery aspect to the income tax....

Your civics education seems to have stopped at "it's a free country," and you doan' wanna hafta do something if you doan' wanna do it. There is no more a slavery aspect of the income tax as there is for any other law which requires us to do something. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.:

“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

Can you imagine what our society would be like if no one had to pay taxes, and we had to pay for each and every service rendered to us? For example, can you imagine what a fustercluck we would be in if we had no professional firefighters, only private companies to which you had to pay premiums befoer they would put out a fire at your property, as was the case in England, years ago? My house was badly damaged by a fire, in November of 2018; and can you imagine the mess which my wife and I would have been in if our firefighting insurance became prohibitively expensive, or got cancelled because we were "too high-risk," and got biled for the cost of putting out the fire? Can you imagine what would have happened if, having no insurance, two separate companies arrived to put out the fire (and collect a hefty fee for doing so), and the two companies began brawling over the issue of which company would do the job? This actually happened in England, more than once. How about police services? Would you really want to receive a bill from the private police force which investigated a crime against you -- and got paid the same whether or not they apprehended the criminal?

I would also agree with those who say that it is obnoxious of you to liken the so-called "slavery aspect" to the income tax to actuall chattel slavery. You really ought to read up on what it was like for those enslaved people before you make any such remarks.

[The Observer]

The particulars are political, which is, I think, banned from this site.

Yes, we do not enter into or allow political or religious discussions. Such discussions distract from the topic of legality of taxes and are irrelevant to the fact that Peymon is lying.

Which raises the point that it is quite difficult to openly debate the character of Peymon on this website because I believe it lies in a realm which is beyond case law and within the realm of polical policy.

Correct. So you are wasting your time here if you want to debate about Peymon's character using politics. We are simply not going to entertain opening up that venue.

Although I do think Peymon may want to suppress knowledge if he could, of the tax judgement against him for $93,000 that he cannot seem to make go away. Yes Peymons arguments in courts of law clearly do not work.

And here again is your disconnect. Despite agreeing that Peymon's arguments are not credible, will not work and that you believe he would suppress facts about his losses, you still want to debate about his character. You do not want to accept the fact that he has a bad character due to him lying to his customers/followers. I am not sure why you think that a political argument is going to justify Peymon making fallacious arguments to others.

[Cspeter8]

There is a slavery aspect to the income tax....

To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.:
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

I agree; in general taxes are indeed necessary and beneficial. I maintain that the federal income tax is a different animal.

Can you imagine what our society would be like if no one had to pay taxes, and we had to pay for each and every service rendered to us? For example, can you imagine what a fustercluck we would be in if we had no professional firefighters, only private companies to which you had to pay premiums befoer they would put out a fire at your property, as was the case in England, years ago? My house was badly damaged by a fire, in November of 2018; and can you imagine the mess which my wife and I would have been in if our firefighting insurance became prohibitively expensive, or got cancelled because we were "too high-risk," and got biled for the cost of putting out the fire? Can you imagine what would have happened if, having no insurance, two separate companies arrived to put out the fire (and collect a hefty fee for doing so), and the two companies began brawling over the issue of which company would do the job? This actually happened in England, more than once. How about police services? Would you really want to receive a bill from the private police force which investigated a crime against you -- and got paid the same whether or not they apprehended the criminal?

Police and firefighters are not funded by Federal income tax. Except maybe the FBI, which I would be happy to see phased out after numerous incidents quite unflattering to them.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not opposed to all federal taxes. One approach I like to raising federal revenues is to put a 1% tax on all money transfers through the federal wire system, suggested in David Webb's enlightening video

I would also agree with those who say that it is obnoxious of you to liken the so-called "slavery aspect" to the income tax to actuall chattel slavery. You really ought to read up on what it was like for those enslaved people before you make any such remarks.

I believe slavery can also be thought of as the opposite of freedom and preservation of human rights. The interpretation of the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" has been greatly watered down from how I think it was originally understood. Peoples financial affairs is considered by many to be highly private and personal. You are welcome to disagree with me.

[AndyK]

Federal Income Tax:

Food and Drug Administration -- Ensuring safe and effective medications
Transportation Safety Board
NOAA -- Weather bureau, hurricane monitoring, etc
FEMA - Disaster recovery assistance
FAA -- Air traffic control and aircraft safety
TSA -- Keeping terrorists off airplanes
Department of Agriculture -- Keeping our food safe
Department of Defense -- Looked at Yemen recently?

Phase out the FBI?? Then replace it with what organization to do the same job? [Please engage brain before running mouth]

Look; no one enjoys paying taxes of any sort. However, I like the idea of paying taxes to an organized government. The alternative -- payingprotection money to a local gang -- is not appealing.

[Cspeter8]

And here again is your disconnect. Despite agreeing that Peymon's arguments are not credible, will not work and that you believe he would suppress facts about his losses, you still want to debate about his character. You do not want to accept the fact that he has a bad character due to him lying to his customers/followers. I am not sure why you think that a political argument is going to justify Peymon making fallacious arguments to others.

Observer, here is my problem. Jesus said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." I cannot see a person as all good or all bad in character. There are infinte shades of grey.

On the other hand, I agree with you, on principal, that the owner of this site sets the rules. If I don't like the treatment a person gets here who has some traits that I respect, I am most welcome to leave and not return. So the choice is mine. If I want to interact on this site, I must accept that defenses of Peymon will likely always raise animosity.

It seems like defending Peymon's character is similar in effect to hurling personal insults at others here.

[Cspeter8]

Food and Drug Administration -- Ensuring safe and effective medications

Not!

(I will respond no more to opposing opinions regarding the FDA)

[The Observer]

I am locking the thread. Despite the fact that Cspeter8 is aware of our rule regarding not including politics or religion in a thread, he continues to do so.

This is your final warning, Cspeter8. If you continue to bring up politics or religion in a post, you will be placed on moderation and will have to wait for your posts to be approved before appearing on the thread.

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote=Pottapaug1938 post_id=296816 time=1705033117 user_id=252
There is a slavery aspect to the income tax....

To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.:
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”
[/quote]
I agree; in general taxes are indeed necessary and beneficial. I maintain that the federal income tax is a different animal.

You are still a fool. If you want to get picky about federal taxes, think of privatizing our armed forces, TSA, border security, etc.

Can you imagine what our society would be like if no one had to pay taxes, and we had to pay for each and every service rendered to us? For example, can you imagine what a fustercluck we would be in if we had no professional firefighters, only private companies to which you had to pay premiums befoer they would put out a fire at your property, as was the case in England, years ago? My house was badly damaged by a fire, in November of 2018; and can you imagine the mess which my wife and I would have been in if our firefighting insurance became prohibitively expensive, or got cancelled because we were "too high-risk," and got biled for the cost of putting out the fire? Can you imagine what would have happened if, having no insurance, two separate companies arrived to put out the fire (and collect a hefty fee for doing so), and the two companies began brawling over the issue of which company would do the job? This actually happened in England, more than once. How about police services? Would you really want to receive a bill from the private police force which investigated a crime against you -- and got paid the same whether or not they apprehended the criminal?

Police and firefighters are not funded by Federal income tax. Except maybe the FBI, which I would be happy to see phased out after numerous incidents quite unflattering to them.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not opposed to all federal taxes. One approach I like to raising federal revenues is to put a 1% tax on all money transfers through the federal wire system, suggested in David Webb's enlightening video

Having spent many years in the financial and insurance sectors, I can tell you that your idea would not come close to replacing revenues lost by any abolition of the Federal income tax. It is also extremely impractical. I have no interest in watching videos produced by cranks and posted on YouTube.

I would also agree with those who say that it is obnoxious of you to liken the so-called "slavery aspect" to the income tax to actual chattel slavery. You really ought to read up on what it was like for those enslaved people before you make any such remarks.

I believe slavery can also be thought of as the opposite of freedom and preservation of human rights. The interpretation of the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" has been greatly watered down from how I think it was originally understood. Peoples financial affairs is considered by many to be highly private and personal. You are welcome to disagree with me.
[/quote]

Damn right I am going to disagree with you! Your definition of slavery is so far from the actual definition that yours is not even in the same universe. As I said before, "slavery," to you, means that the bad, evil gummint is making you do things which you doan' wanna hafta do because it's a free country. As for your comment about the Fourth Amendment, the original understanding" of 1791 no longer makes any sense in the 21st century; and absent a revision of the Amendment, our courts have the job of trying to apply the Amendment to things not dreamed of in the 18th century. And then, your comment about how "peoples [sic] financial affairs is considered by many to be highly private and personal" is irrelevant to what the law actually is -- can you imagine a money launderer, drug dealer, or bank robber making that claim? Yes, we give up some of our secrecy in order that our government be properly funded (and remember -- no politics on this site!); but the "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution, among other things, provides the Federal government with the authority to enact tax laws.

[wserra]

Temporarily unlocked for Cspeter8 to respond, if he so desires.

[Cspeter8]

Thankyou wserra for the opportunity to respond. Sounds as though I am already locked down, otherwise?

Damn right I am going to disagree with you! Your definition of slavery is so far from the actual definition that yours is not even in the same universe. As I said before, "slavery," to you, means that the bad, evil gummint is making you do things which you doan' wanna hafta do because it's a free country. As for your comment about the Fourth Amendment, the original understanding" of 1791 no longer makes any sense in the 21st century; and absent a revision of the Amendment, our courts have the job of trying to apply the Amendment to things not dreamed of in the 18th century. And then, your comment about how "peoples [sic] financial affairs is considered by many to be highly private and personal" is irrelevant to what the law actually is -- can you imagine a money launderer, drug dealer, or bank robber making that claim? Yes, we give up some of our secrecy in order that our government be properly funded (and remember -- no politics on this site!); but the "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution, among other things, provides the Federal government with the authority to enact tax laws.

"no politics on this site" I believe means, practically speaking, no contrary political views on this site. Otherwise politics is more than welcome, if it follows the narrative of the herd that is comfortable here.

I sincerely hope this candid expression of thought does not excessively ruffle feathers. I understand I am a guest here under very tenuous circumstance. I do enjoy interacting with all of you and reflecting on your viewpoints, and would hate to lose that privilege.