Thanks for piping up, TA.
I've received PMs from others who'd rather not be subject to ridicule.
Parados, right in the source you provided:
Quote: The court in a tax fraud case refused to take judicial notice of what were alleged to be thousands of documents, none of them placed in evidence, which were supposedly filed in unspecified courts elsewhere which substatiated in some unspecified way that the Sixteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified.
What is the point in exemplifying this decision, absent consideration of the evidence brought? Clearly, it is to discourage others from using the tactic, but that in no way
proves the tactic invalid.
Quote: the leading case; held that the Sec of State's 1913 proclamation of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is conclusive and "is now beyond review
Beyond review?
What an absurd position to take. In this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders; it is our responsibility.
Quote: the Constitutional provision that Congress will have exclusive authority over DC only means that no state govt has authority over DC but it does not limit Congress's authority to make laws, including tax laws, only to DC); O.L. Brown v. CIR (2/9/97) TC Memo 1987-78 (judge declined to buy a copy); Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); US v. Stahl (9th Cir 1986) 792 F2d 1438 cert.den 479 US 1036; Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); {Note: The argument in "The Law That Never Was" by Benson & Beckman is a 1913 legal memo worked up for the Sec. of State by the Solicitor of the State Dept regarding the ratifications received from state legislatures for the proposed 16th amendment, noticing that several of these notifications contained tiny typos in reprinting the text of the proposed amendment.
This is not a comprehensive assessment of the protester's complaints, but it is now treated as if it was. Attempts to attack from alternate angles are routinely denied and now even cause to be fined for frivolity
all to the detriment of assessing the truth, whatever it may be.
From the cases being touted as "precedent"
Quote:At the outset, we note that the 16th Amendment has been in existence for 73 years and have been applied by the Supreme Court in countless cases. While this alone is not sufficient to bar judicial inquiry, it is very persuasive on the question of validity.
This is bunk. The SC does not examine laws for lawfulness until specifically asked to do so... and even then, since they're Human, tend to weigh arguments against each other... rather than dive headlong into doing the research for themselves. This argument is a naked fallacious appeal to antiquity, even while being asked to examine said history. The consequence is a circular argument against the respective plaintiffs with the full authority of the courts. Hence, the more often they rule in consideration of
possibly faulty precedents; the more examples you have to pretend the issues have been thoroughly, repeatedly revisited in detail... which of course they haven't. This distinction is a fine one. To the extent the IRS, DOJ, or the vast majority of the general public who pay their taxes is concerned, the matter is settled, and in a sufficient manner to convict tax cheats. Likewise, the courts have barricaded the entrance to the arguments to prevent it from being revisited.
What your arrogant certainty discounts, is the narrow possibility that the courts have erred... perhaps even intentionally. Common sense tells us that if this were the case, it would be of little consequence to the tax payer, because the Fed could obviously not afford to reimburse the ill gotten gains. Obviously, the end result would be to simply go through the motions again and produce a new, clearly defined law that would effectively accomplish the same thing. It is this realization that tells us Joe Citizen has nothing to gain. Conversely, such a possibility would be a bureaucratic nightmare of epic proportion for the Federal government.
If the SC or even lower courts were to realize such; wouldn't the most logical course be to ignore the error and proceed as if it didn't exist? Is it impossible that this is the reasoning behind denying admission of arguments that have indeed proven successful in lower courts? After all, who but the Tax Cheat stands anything to gain?
Now consider the argument against the Federal Reserve... and the fact that it's funded by the United States Taxpayer to his detriment. Any damn fool knows that interest on our National Dept results in the devaluation of our currency just as surely as printing additional money does. We choose to do both
but I contend
that "we" does not in fact encompass Joe citizen's desire. You imply that the people get to choose our government's fiscal path through their votes, but do they? Is there any doubt in your mind what the result of a balanced budget referendum would be?
Meanwhile, our Two Party System has enacted numerous Laws to protect itself to the mutual benefit of the politicians Vs. the people they
supposedly represent. How could anyone, in good conscience, pretend that this isn't so? Or that the ramifications of same doesn't include a reduction in the Power of the People over the system that supposedly works for them?
The system itself is in the ongoing, inevitable process of turning on its master (us). It seems awareness has to be the first step in reversing this process. A demand for transparent, universally understood use and procurement of the system's means is the most universally understandable aspect of it, so attacking or counter-attacking on that front seems the most logical path. Now you can write that off as the greed of the Tax Cheat, and not be at all wrong, but that isn't the end of the equation.
When Larry Flint fought for his right to peddle smut, the result was greater protections against government intrusion for us all. If a movement such as "We the People" were to succeed at exposing foul-play, to any degree, the result would be a reduction of the
system's power over the people, which is of course, the polar opposite of our forefather's vision in the first place.
Ross Perot failed to win an election on the premise that government corruption, waste and unaccountability needed to be addressed. Even in his failure, he succeeded at pushing the deficit issue to the forefront. My point is; whether this film's accusations can be proven accurate or not; the resulting questions, research and debates can only lead to greater public awareness, which can only be viewed as a good thing. Had the system a personality, I'm sure it would appreciate Parados' mind numbing ridicule of the proponents aligned against it.
This is the type of idiotic BS that usually precludes my deciding to ignore you. I've explained the depth I'm willing to research this and could hardly care less whether or not that is satisfactory to you. While I find the topic quite interesting, sifting through hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of legal-speak I do not find interesting. At no point did I claim any veracity in any of the protesters claims, beyond the FACT that I haven't seen undeniable proof they are false. Since you've made your certainty abundantly clear, feel free to prove it. Any more BS about what I want to believe so bad or having been duped, and I'll likely ignore you from here on out. That type of unwarranted BS is as asinine as it is tiresome. You're a smart man Parados... grow the F*** up already, will ya?
