Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] The banning of Dave Miner

Expand Messages
  • Circuitman
    I wish to add my voice to those who have been scammed by Dave Miner, for $1850. This information needs to get out far and wide to stop him from scamming others
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I wish to add my voice to those who have been scammed by Dave Miner, for $1850. This information needs to get out far and wide to stop him from scamming others unaware of his schemes.

    • Patrick M
      In LAW just as in GRAMMAR, people need to be very CAREFUL because WHAT you say may NOT be WHAT you MEAN. Direct un-apportioned tax does NOT mean the same
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        In LAW just as in GRAMMAR, people need to be very CAREFUL because WHAT you say may NOT be WHAT you MEAN.

         

        “Direct un-apportioned tax” does NOT mean the same thing as “un-apportioned direct tax”, or more correctly a “non-apportioned ‘direct tax’”.

         

        There are "direct taxes" which must be APPORTIONED & there are "indirect taxes" such as DUTIES, IMPOSTS & EXCISES which must be UNIFORM.

         

        http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

         

        According to the U.S. SUPREME COURT, INCOME TAXES are “indirect taxes” & thus they do NOT require APPORTIONMENT.

         

        And any ARGUMENT made in LAW without FACTS or LAW to EVIDENCE it is by DEFINITION “frivolous”, so they can REJECT it.

         

        FRIVOLOUS: lacking in any arguable basis or merit in either law or fact (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 2001)

         

        WHICH is WHY the IRS can TRUTHFULLY (but very DECEIPTIVELY) state the following:

        In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9 th Cir. 1989) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax.

        Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980) - The court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.

        Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7 th Cir. 1984) - The court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district court's frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneys' fees to the government "because [the taxpayers'] legal position was patently frivolous." The appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing "frivolous arguments in bad faith."

        http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106507,00.html

         

        Patrick in California

         

        "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.