The logic of Brushaber

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Agreed. And in my opinion it's one of the worst examples of writing (of any kind, not just law-related materials) I have ever seen, in terms of convoluted sentence structure.

Indeed.

The consequences allow a tiny fraction of the interested parties to stumble all over the place. Just reading and trying to understand Brushaber and the commentary will give most people a headache. This allows the more opportunistic to take advantage of the more ignorant.

It's the same playing field that has developed in the consumer-lending world. Complexity and obtuse legalese has introduced all manner of slippery slopes to be played out in the legal system because the average person isn't equipped to comprehend the "secret" language of the law.

[Famspear]

...

Agreed. And in my opinion it's one of the worst examples of writing (of any kind, not just law-related materials) I have ever seen, in terms of convoluted sentence structure.

Indeed.

The consequences allow a tiny fraction of the interested parties to stumble all over the place. Just reading and trying to understand Brushaber and the commentary will give most people a headache. This allows the more opportunistic to take advantage of the more ignorant.

It's the same playing field that has developed in the consumer-lending world. Complexity and obtuse legalese has introduced all manner of slippery slopes to be played out in the legal system because the average person isn't equipped to comprehend the "secret" language of the law.

The thing is, I would find it hard to accept that the opinion in Brushaber (by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White) was considered good legal writing, even back then in 1916. Obviously, many of us here have studied hundreds, or thousands, of cases even older than this one, so we're used to having to slog through arcane verbosity, etc.

But for me, this one stands out as really, really poorly drafted.

Maybe we should study other opinions by Chief Justice White from that era. I wonder if this one was an anomaly. Hey, I think I might do some research on that.

In my spare time.

When I get around to it.

[Famspear]

Let's see if we can summarize the contributions of "Micheal360" so far.

He claimed that Treasury Decision 2313 identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a “domestic corporation”.

It did neither of those things.

He claimed that the judge in Lord v. Kelley "admitted" that "federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS."

The judge in that case said and wrote no such thing.

He cited the case of People v. Boxer as somehow relating to the so called "material evidence" against the 16th Amendment. The case was none other than a cluster f**k involving Mitch Modeleski, William Benson, and assorted other Wackadoosters (who have tried to argue that the Amendment was not properly ratified).

He parroted the old tax protester rant about the Sixteenth Amendment not having contained a provision "expressly repealing" the two relevant provisions of the original text of the Constitution -- apparently blissfully unaware that U.S. constitutional amendments do not contain "repeal" language (with one exception), and that they don't "need" to contain "repeal" language.

He claimed that his quotes were from President Reagan's Grace Commission reports.

They're not.

Duuuuhhhhhhhh........

[Pottapaug1938]

Even if Judge Wyzanski did say the words which Micheal 360 says that he said, the words are dicta and not part of the holding in a case, which means that they are nothing more than a judge's commentary, rather than case law.

[Micheal360]

Oops, I see NYGman beat me to it.

Yep, I found this on the Modeleski web site:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/petition.htm

THE PEOPLE OF THE CALIFORNIA ) Number S-030016
REPUBLIC, ex relatione, )
)
MITCHELL P. MODELESKI, ) PETITION
Petitioner At Law ) for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
) to compel the performance
v. ) of a duty owed to
) Petitioner
BARBARA BOXER, )
Respondent at Law

This is the case our newest village idiot is talking about.

This nonsense even includes an affidavit from fraudster William Benson, the most famous of all the crooks involved in the "Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified" scam.



EDIT: The spacing and formatting for that caption got messed up when I copied and pasted it. But, you get the idea. Actually, considering PAM's ummmm, shall we say.... "condition"..... what difference does it make?

LOL.... I know. I am still trying to if there is any truth with Paul Andrew Mitchell 31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service. So far no luck! I have read the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) case, the full case. And is about the 16th amendment. I don't see how you came up with the fact that the 16th does not matter if the income is taxed direct of indirect. The case clearly shows that it does. But you keep saying no. I am not typing this out so I am pasting, The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment. That is the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) How do you come up with the fact that the 16th amendment does not matter if the income is tax direct of indirect? Just because I cut and pasted the text does not change the case. Famspear you are making no sound augment.

[Famspear]

.....I am still trying to if there is any truth with Paul Andrew Mitchell 31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service. So far no luck! I have read the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) case, the full case. And is about the 16th amendment. I don't see how you came up with the fact that the 16th does not matter if the income is taxed direct of indirect. The case clearly shows that it does. But you keep saying no. I am not typing this out so I am pasting, The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment. That is the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) How do you come up with the fact that the 16th amendment does not matter if the income is tax direct of indirect? Just because I cut and pasted the text does not change the case. Famspear you are making no sound augment.

We just went through the Brushaber case. Read the prior threads. We've been through this over and over and over and over and over again.

[LPC]

Is it just my imagination, or are Micheal360 and Jameson3171 both operating from the same IP address?

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with Famspear here, and while IANAL, I think that is one of the poorest written overwrought bits of judicial prattling I can remember. It is incredibly convoluted and for no reason that I can think of other than the judge liking and being incorrectly impressed with the sound of his own voice.

I think WES's summation of what it all means is by far the cleanest and clearest. Considering that Pollock was a 5-4, it could just as easily have gone the other way, as I think it most likely would today. The 16th makes the distinction, if there actually is one, irrelevant, but that point just doesn't seem to register in some quarters.

[wserra]

It isn't your imagination, Dan.

Jamie, one of the few rules this board has: "no sock puppets". If you don't choose one identity and stick to it, I'll do it for you.

[Micheal360]

Is it just my imagination, or are Micheal360 and Jameson3171 both operating from the same IP address?

Famspear You are the undisputed income tax champion of the world. You possess the power and wisdom to interpret case law and the 16th amendment Like no other man in our existence today or in the past.. No one can contest your superior intelligence. Law School Hall of Famer the late Tom Cryer Could not match up to your superior intelligence. Constitutional Attorney, Scholar and Author Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. the man who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). Another man who cannot match up your superior intelligence.

Fampear you are always right, and everybody is always wrong. You are the only one that has the ability to read. You possess such great power. Can you please use your great power and wisdom to interpret this for me, I am just not worthy to do so on my own. I know that you have a issue with people cutting and pasting text. But I just don't have the time like you have to type it out. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. The decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A separate holding regarding the taxation of interest income on certain bonds was overruled by the Supreme Court in 1988 in the case of South Carolina v. Baker.

I am sure with your God like complex and OCD With the income tax laws, you will discredit this Wikipedia content by claiming it is nonsense or incorrect. You really should seek professional medical help with this disorder. You are looking up IP addresses, seriously! Jameson3171 was telling me about you, and I had to see for myself. I share his Internet connection. If the 16th amendment did in fact give Congress the power to tax all income without limitations there would be no confusion. Unfortunately that's not the case and that's why there is confusion Famspear. You keep making references to the lower courts. First and foremost the lower courts have to be in compliance with the superior courts.

Famspear! You are always trying to discredit all text and content on the income tax.
"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."
Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

Do you really think that your interpretation of the Brushaber case Is correct and the Harvard law review is incorrect? Seriously go seek therapy for your OCD and have a nice day.

Footnote:
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"
Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws'

[LPC]

Yes, the Supreme Court has said that the income tax is "indirect."

What Micheal/Jameson needs to figure out is why (or how) the Supreme Court said that even while the tax was being collected directly from individual taxpayers.

[Famspear]

Is it just my imagination, or are Micheal360 and Jameson3171 both operating from the same IP address?

Famspear You are the undisputed income tax champion of the world. You possess the power and wisdom to interpret case law and the 16th amendment Like no other man in our existence today or in the past.. No one can contest your superior intelligence. Law School Hall of Famer the late Tom Cryer Could not match up to your superior intelligence. Constitutional Attorney, Scholar and Author Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. the man who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). Another man who cannot match up your superior intelligence.

Fampear you are always right, and everybody is always wrong. You are the only one that has the ability to read. You possess such great power. Can you please use your great power and wisdom to interpret this for me, I am just not worthy to do so on my own....

That's all true, Jamey.

Now, go back and re-read the prior posts.

Over and over again.

Groveling is good.

[Famspear]

Famspear! You are always trying to discredit all text and content on the income tax.

No, grasshopper. It's not the text of Brushaber that is incorrect.

What is incorrect is your own interpretation of this and other texts.

Read the texts, Jamey.

[Duke2Earl]

As a strictly practical matter, it really doesn't matter one fig how one reads Brushaber. (Although in actuality, the troll of the day can't read at all.) There is only one thing that really matters. This exact discussion has been repeated many many times over the years and one thing is always true. Never once, in any court, has any reading of Brushaber relieved anyone from having to pay income tax. Ever. Never happened, never will. No set of quotes, no articles, no alleged logic, no fervent beliefs, none of that has ever worked. A few people have escaped jail but NO ONE has gotten out of the obligation to pay income taxes. End of story.

[Pottapaug1938]

Is it just my imagination, or are Micheal360 and Jameson3171 both operating from the same IP address?

Jameson3171 wrote: "Famspear You are the undisputed income tax champion of the world. You possess the power and wisdom to interpret case law and the 16th amendment Like no other man in our existence today or in the past.. No one can contest your superior intelligence. Law School Hall of Famer the late Tom Cryer Could not match up to your superior intelligence. Constitutional Attorney, Scholar and Author Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. the man who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). Another man who cannot match up your superior intelligence."

"Fampear you are always right, and everybody is always wrong. You are the only one that has the ability to read. You possess such great power. Can you please use your great power and wisdom to interpret this for me, I am just not worthy to do so on my own...."

I get the impression that English is not Jamey's first language.

[Hyrion]

In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS.

I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion you have formed a mistaken impression of what the Judge actually stated - in the alternative, you relied on the mistaken position of another.

Link to the opinion: http://leagle.com/decision/1965407240FS ... .%20KELLEY

What the Judge did say:

More than once the judges of a court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this Court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective.

In my humble opinion, that last sentence makes it quite clear the Judge is not at all concerned. The conclusion that "Judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation" based on what Judge Wyzanski wrote is quite mistaken.

Worst case: Such a statement deliberately misrepresents what the Judge actually stated.

Edit: Oops, reading further in the thread I see Famspear already covered that, should have expected that.

[notorial dissent]

Well, certainly NOT competent in it at any rate.

[Hyrion]

It isn't your imagination, Dan.

Jamie, one of the few rules this board has: "no sock puppets". If you don't choose one identity and stick to it, I'll do it for you.

Well.... I'd suggest he doesn't think too highly of his own opinion if he "has to pretend to be someone else with a position supporting his".

I'd also suggest his heavy insistence on whether or not he is going to trial over his tax practices stems more from a hope and desire that it doesn't happen then any firm belief it's truly not possible.

[Pottapaug1938]

Jamie seems to think that if he repeats the same tired arguments, time after time and through a sockpuppet if necessary, we will take them seriously. In his fervor and passion, he overlooks the fact that his videos, web sites and the like are NOT authoritative on the law; and he wastes time parsing Brushaber instead of looking at the holding in the case, which makes his arduous mental exertions pointless.

[notorial dissent]

Jamie appears to have some reading comprehension problems, and as he has had the actual findings of the Brushaber case pointed out to him repeatedly he really isn't interested in anything but the sound of his own voice(s). I will grant that it is not the easiest read, but there are enough other summations of it that he has no excuse other than intentional blindness for not seeing it.