Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
52 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hovind busted, finally
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 308 (378018)
01-19-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 10:18 AM


For a state to ratify that amendment, its legislature would have had to pass a law or resolution stating that it did so. I suspect that the governor of that state would have to approve it. In which states did this not take place?


But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 10:18 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 308 (378022)
01-19-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 10:18 AM


According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , "The Law That Never Was" the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. So in a very real sense ...

Okay, let me stop you there. In a "very real sense", the 16th Amendment is law, in that if you don't pay income tax, people will arrest you, and then you'll be tried, and then you'll go to jail. And you will go to jail "in a very real sense".

In a made-up imaginary sense, the 16th Amendment isn't law, and a couple of magicians called Benson and Beckman used the mighty powers of their magic wands to make it go away. But in a "very real sense", Hovind's going to jail.

That is "very real" in that it's what actually happens. Your version of the law is a stupid fantasy, and has never swayed the decision of a court, except insofar as judges will impose fines on a frivolous argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 10:18 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 213 of 308 (378023)
01-19-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Modulous
01-19-2007 10:31 AM


It is the courts that get to decide if income tax is legal or not based on these kinds of objections.

Guess what they decided?

They decided not to question the Feds its not healthy if you care to remain among the living.

--------------------------------

It may be that you were never a big fan of John F. Kennedy, but you may see him in a different light after you learn how he took on the FEDS. He had the foresight to see what a bad deal had been struck in the creation of the Federal Reserve. He also had the courage to do something about it.which unfortunately, may have cost him his life.

On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed a Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110. This order virtually stripped the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Government at interest. President Kennedy declared the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. This order gave the Treasury Department the authority to issue silver certificates against any silver in the treasury. This executive order still stands today. In less than five months after signing that executive order President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/FEDERALRESERVE.HTML

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 10:31 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Chiroptera, posted 01-19-2007 10:50 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 10:56 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 220 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2007 11:38 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 308 (378024)
01-19-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 10:48 AM


Hi, Charley.

Did you know that Pompeii was destroyed in 1631?


But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 10:48 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 660 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 215 of 308 (378026)
01-19-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 10:48 AM


They decided not to question the Feds its not healthy if you care to remain among the living.

Courts make rulings, is there something in your constitution where they are required to 'question the Feds'? When presented with the evidence they decide facts. They have been presented with the evidence that the 16th ammendment was not legally ratified and they have decided that this is not the case - the 16th ammendment stands as a legally ratified document as per the body that the constitution has apppointed to decide if an ammendment was legally ratified.

I don't see how, constitutionally speaking, there is any question over the legality over the ammendment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 10:48 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:09 AM Modulous has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 308 (378029)
01-19-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
07-14-2006 2:33 PM


...or at the least stuck to legal tax avoidance schemes.

If you could please list these that would be great. Or, if you want, you can just send me an email or pm, or however that works ;) ;)

I look forward to your reply.

J0N


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2006 2:33 PM PaulK has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 217 of 308 (378031)
01-19-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Modulous
01-19-2007 10:56 AM


The problem is these private bankers that make our money out of nothing are not paying income tax. Hovind dared to challenge the private bankers and paid the price.

--------------------------------------

We didn't have nor did we need an income tax until we got the bankers back. The income tax was only needed to pay interest to the bankers for our money that they loan to our government. Yes, you read that right, the Fed, mostly on paper and computer, creates money or pays the treasury a small printing fee for currency, and then loans this money to our government. Our taxes pay them interest on this loan that cost the FEDS virtually nothing to make, what a sweetheart of a deal they have going for them.

As of March 6, 2006, the national debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369.66 in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006. No con artist or group of con artists in history has ever perpetrated a scam that even approaches the scope of this one.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/FEDERALRESERVE.HTML


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 10:56 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 11:23 AM johnfolton has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 660 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 218 of 308 (378037)
01-19-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 11:09 AM


Your changing the subject would normally be indicative of a concession of the original point. Does it stand that you have changed your argument from a legal point of view (conceding that income tax cannot be legally disputed) towards a moral point of view (income tax is a legal scam)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:09 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:39 AM Modulous has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 219 of 308 (378039)
01-19-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
01-19-2007 8:52 AM


Re: Sentencing today:
Oh my, the comments.

Kent Hovind was jailed as part of the "War on Christmas":

"The bottome line here as to why the Hovinds are being persecuted to the extent that they are, is because in the world that we live in today, it is politically incorrect to wish somebody a merry Christmas. Instead, it has to be “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holiday”. Under no circumstance can we imply that the holiday of Christmas is involved with the celebrating of our dear Jesus being born to this earth only to later die for our sins. No, to be politically correct, we should remove the word “Christ” from everything."

Oh for pete's sake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 01-19-2007 8:52 AM Percy has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 220 of 308 (378042)
01-19-2007 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 10:48 AM


They decided not to question the Feds its not healthy if you care to remain among the living.

And yet you "question the Feds." Very publicly. On an Internet forum.

C'mon. You know the difference between your fantasy world and the real world. In your fantasy world, "the Feds" would kill you for making that post. In the real world, you're not even a little bit afraid of making it, are you? Before your little rant about the 16th Amendment, you didn't pause for a little while over the "Submit Reply" button thinking: "But what if the Feds kill me for saying this". Did you?

In the real world, you know perfectly well that you can say what you like about the IRS. Don't you? This is why you do in fact say what you like about the IRS. Isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 10:48 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 221 of 308 (378043)
01-19-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Modulous
01-19-2007 11:23 AM


Your changing the subject would normally be indicative of a concession of the original point. Does it stand that you have changed your argument from a legal point of view (conceding that income tax cannot be legally disputed) towards a moral point of view (income tax is a legal scam)?

I personally believe in conservative Federal Judges who abide by the laws of the land not the liberal Federal Judges that are not abiding by the laws of the land.

If the FED's ability to craft money out of nothing and collect interest has not been ratified by the states then Hovind was unjustly judged.

-------------------------

Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution reads:
The Congress shall have the Power.....To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,....
Nowhere in that document does it give Congress the authority to delegate this responsibility to anyone, much less a bunch of private bankers.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/FEDERALRESERVE.HTML


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 11:23 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 11:54 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 660 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 222 of 308 (378047)
01-19-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 11:39 AM


If the FED's ability to craft money out of nothing and collect interest has not been ratified by the states then Hovind was unjustly judged.

Good point. If only the constitution had created some body that could decide whether or not an ammendment was legally ratified! If only the writers of that document had half a brain between them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:39 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 2:30 PM Modulous has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 223 of 308 (378085)
01-19-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Modulous
01-19-2007 11:54 AM


I don't like wasting a post with so few left in a topic that seems to be coming back to life, but why does it seem like more Brits on this board are better educated about the US government system than americans are on their own government? especially considering that you all aren't really expected to know it so well--I mean sure, know that we have a Pres. and a Congress, and a bunch of other miniature governments, but the depth of knowledge is frankly amazing.

Granted, not even some harvard seniors know that we have seasons due to the tilt of earth's access, so . . .

I'll fill in something about the 16th shortly. For the moment--I need to head to westminster to pick up the rest of my stuff for school.

ABE:
To Charlie:
On the declaration that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by at least 3/4 of state legislatures:

First, the current income tax amendment is different from the original income taxes, which were declared to be indirect taxes. the basic effect of the amendment was that the income tax is a direct tax, not an excise (indirect). Third, here is a list of states that ratified the amendment by 1913:
Alabama
Kentucky
S. Carolina
Illinois
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Maryland
Georgia
Texas
Ohio
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Indiana
Montana (hey, I didn't know my cousing was a state! :))
California
Nevada
S. Dakota
Nebraska
N. Carolina
Colorado
N. Dakota
Kansas
Michigan
Iowa
Missouri
Maine
Tennesse
Arkansas
Wisconsin
New York
Arizona
Minnesota
Louisiana
W. Virginia
New Mexico
Delaware
Wyoming
New jersey
Vermont
Massachusetts
New Hampshire

Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut rejected
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida did nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

42 states ratified. 3 rejected. 3 declared nothing. 42/48 = 7/8
In order to be ratified, you only needed 36 states.

Ironically, Hovind is in Florida, a state the rejected the amendment. Perhaps he thinks then that federal law need not apply?

Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2007 11:54 AM Modulous has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 224 of 308 (378127)
01-19-2007 5:03 PM


Preliminary Info - 10 years and $640k
According to the following blog Hovind got almost 10 years and a $640,000 fine:

http://currentchristian.com/2007/01/19/kent-hovind-sentenced-to-10-years-prison-jo-hovind-sentencing-delayed/

His wifes sentencing has been delayed.

Awaiting confirmation.

Edited by anglagard, : plural wife


Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2007 5:05 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5515
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 225 of 308 (378128)
01-19-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by anglagard
01-19-2007 5:03 PM


Re: Preliminary Info - 10 years and $640k

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by anglagard, posted 01-19-2007 5:03 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020