Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hovind busted, finally
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 227 of 308 (378138)
01-19-2007 5:51 PM


Ten years for fraud.
There's not a man among us who'll say he didn't deserve it.
He lied, he lied, he lied, he lied, he lied, and he is PWNED!!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 7:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 256 of 308 (378294)
01-20-2007 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 11:32 PM


Re: Well ...
1. Wages are not taxable income, as the term is defined by several key decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that remain in force today.
This is of course not true, which is why you can't cite any of these mythical rulings of the Supreme Court.
Here's an actual legal ruling:
"Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are "income" pursuant to the federal tax laws." (Boubel v. United States)
2. The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to levy "direct taxes" on private property, but only if those taxes are apportioned across the 50 States.
This is, of course, not true. The Sixteenth Amendment supercedes the rule on apportionment.
3. The IRS now enforces the collection of "income taxes" as direct taxes without apportionment, and cites the 16th Amendment for its authority to do so.
This is true. The Sixteenth Amendment, plus the specific tax laws, are indeed their authority to collect the income tax.
4. The 16th Amendment, the "income tax" amendment, was never lawfully ratified by the required 36 States, but was declared ratified by the U.S. Secretary of State.
This is, of course, not true, and you have been given a list of the states which ratified it.
5. The 16th Amendment could never have done away with the apportionment rule for any direct taxes if it never became a law in the first place.
But since it did "become a law", this is a rather pointless statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 258 of 308 (378319)
01-20-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 11:32 PM


Wages Are Income
Wages are not taxable income...
"[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation." Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).
"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).
"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..." Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff'g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);
"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984); Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).
"Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional." Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), citing United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984);
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal failures to file affirmed).
"[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income." Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986).
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
"Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are "income" pursuant to the federal tax laws." Boubel v. United States, 86 AFTR2d 2000-5123, No. 1:99-cv-380 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Tenn. 6/22/2000).
"[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'WAGES ARE INCOME.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous...."" Hill v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984), (emphasis in original), (quoting United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)).
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (5) wages are not income...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024