|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hovind busted, finally | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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. Error 404 Page Not Found Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
...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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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. Error 404 Page Not Found
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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. Error 404 Page Not Found
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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 rejectedVirginia, Pennsylvania, Florida did nothing Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia 42 states ratified. 3 rejected. 3 declared nothing. 42/48 = 7/8In 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 859 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
According to the following blog Hovind got almost 10 years and a $640,000 fine:
CurrentChristian.com is for sale | HugeDomains His wifes sentencing has been delayed. Awaiting confirmation. Edited by anglagard, : plural wife
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 757 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Confirmed:
Pensacola News Journal
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024