2209Re: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Judge Rejects Argument that Income Tax Is Unconstitutional
- Aug 5, 2003
What did he expect?
Do you really expect a judge to rule in favor of something that would end his own paycheck?
Give me a break.
Three judges won't do any differently. Why? Because they are paid by the system that Swan is challanging
The supremes won't do any differently eiterh. Why? Same reason... their own pay checks are dependent upon this extortion.
The solution is not in the courts. They are part of the system and the system is corrupt.
>From: "Steven Swan">Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org>To: "Steven Swan">Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Judge Rejects Argument that Income Tax Is Unconstitutional>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:04:01 -0400>>For Immediate Release>>On March 5, 2003, Steven A. Swan of Auburn, New Hampshire was indicted by a federal grand jury in Concord on 18 felony violations of the internal revenue laws relative to his efforts to try to have the federal income tax declared unconstitutional because it is not imposed in accordance with the original intent of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, i.e., a tax intended to be imposed solely upon the earnings of wealthy individuals and businesses in this country. On July 23, 2003, Swan filed a motion in his case asking the court to dismiss the charges against him because the federal income tax and all of the laws which pertain to it are unconstitutional.>>In support of his motion Swan included a tremendous amount of evidence from the Congressional debates pertaining to the Income Tax of 1894, which was also intended to be imposed solely on the earnings of the wealthy; from reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1895 declaring the Income Tax of 1894 unconstitutional; from various sources from 1895 through 1909 about the need for a constitutional amendment allowing for an income tax on the earnings on the wealthy; from the Congressional debates proposing an income tax amendment to the Constitution in 1909; from various sources while the States were ratifying that amendment from 1909 through 1913; and from the Congressional debates regarding the enactment of the income tax in 1913. Swan's motion also included evidence showing that for many years after the enactment of the income tax in 1913, the federal income tax WAS only imposed on the earnings of the wealthy. Some of this evidence is on Swan's Web site www.zeroincometax.com. However, Swan included far more evidence in his motion to dismiss than is currently on my Web site.>>On August 1, 2003, Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire, Paul J. Barbadoro, denied Swan's motion to dismiss the charges against him and the 25-page brief in support of it using only two words-"Motion Denied." No explanation, no thoughts, no references to any other cases, no suggestion as to how he arrived at his decision, nothing.>>Swan's next step is to appeal Judge Barbadoro's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts. Swan is hopeful that a three-judge panel there will give more consideration to his motion than Judge Barbadoro did.>>Swan is also encouraging people to support his effort to get the federal income tax declared unconstitutional by letting as many people as possible know about the petition drive he has instituted on his Web site www.zeroincometax.com and by asking them to sign that petition. He is also encouraging people to contact their U.S. Senators and Congressmen and tell them about the evidence he has amassed proving that the original intent of the 16th Amendment was to authorize Congress to impose an income tax solely on the earnings of the wealthy. To find out how people can contact their U.S. Senators, they can click on www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. To find out how people can contact their U.S. Congressmen, they can click on www.house.gov/Welcome.html.>>Swan believes that there are two ways to get the federal income tax declared unconstitutional because it is not imposed in accordance with the original intent of the 16th Amendment. One way is to petition and educate Congress and force them as the elected representatives of the people to do their constitutional duty and to rectify the situation. The other way is through the court system, which is what Swan is attempting to do in the Government's criminal case against him. However, both of these ways require as much help from as many other people as possible.>>Swan is also encouraging people to contact Judge Barbadoro and let him know if they do not appreciate the manner in which he dismissed Swan's well-researched and well-plead motion. They can do so by writing to Chief Judge Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301.>>To follow Swan's court case, you can go to www.stevenswan.com. Swan can be contacted by telephone at (603) 483-0550.>>
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>