US Marshalls Ordered To Cease & Desist Racketeering For Illegitimate Taxation By IRS

  • Thread starter www.freedomtofascism.com
  • Start date
On 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

>In our last episode,
><bckr739arglckqn61foktid5kr2et362ku@4ax.com>,
>the lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com
>broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:22 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>><_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>>>news:kdar73dlgc3t8nhkbuhum5s0qcbus6g9ih@4ax.com...
>>>> On 23 Jun 2007 22:58:12 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Apportioned means assigned by a plan.
>>>>>
>>>>>That does not make every plan apportionment.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't try to argue that a bazillion lines of IRS code taxing
>>>> Americans is not a plan, because you'll be laughed off the face of the
>>>> Earth.
>>>
>>>Read. He said a plan isn't necessarily apportionment.
>>>
>>>_invertebrate_
>
>> What's a slimeball like you doing pimping for the IRS?
>
>No one is saying the IRS is on the side of the angels, only that you are
>full of ****.

So you're admitting defeat.

Like I said -- there's no law giving anyone permission to tax the American
citizen's incomes.

Read the freaking Constitution, dumbass.

It says "WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT". That means NO ORGANIZATION CAN SET UP ANY
PLAN WHAT SO EVER TO INSTITUTE TAXATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Dumbass!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
news:n9kr73dfen7r5l2m4q163t4c42cefsclrg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>
>>You poor, confused thing.
>
> Really? The Constitution expressly says -- NOT TAX ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
>
> Read it, comprehend it, buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the
> phrase
> 'without apportionment'.
>
> Dumbass!

If you've already answered this question, I apologize for having missed it,
but please give a yes-or-no answer.

Can the federal government collect any taxes whatsoever?

Your statement above seems to answer the question, but I want to be certain
I understand your position.

_invertebrate_
 
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:47:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

>
>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>news:n9kr73dfen7r5l2m4q163t4c42cefsclrg@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>
>>>You poor, confused thing.
>>
>> Really? The Constitution expressly says -- NOT TAX ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
>>
>> Read it, comprehend it, buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the
>> phrase
>> 'without apportionment'.
>>
>> Dumbass!
>
>If you've already answered this question, I apologize for having missed it,
>but please give a yes-or-no answer.
>
>Can the federal government collect any taxes whatsoever?

Rothschild does whatever it damn well pleases, irespective of anything sane,
rational right or wrong -- and if anyone challenges then, they kill them.

>Your statement above seems to answer the question, but I want to be certain
>I understand your position.

Go **** yourself in the ass.

Comprende?
>
>_invertebrate_
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:47:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

>
>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>news:n9kr73dfen7r5l2m4q163t4c42cefsclrg@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>
>>>You poor, confused thing.
>>
>> Really? The Constitution expressly says -- NOT TAX ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
>>
>> Read it, comprehend it, buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the
>> phrase
>> 'without apportionment'.
>>
>> Dumbass!
>
>If you've already answered this question, I apologize for having missed it,
>but please give a yes-or-no answer.
>
>Can the federal government collect any taxes whatsoever?

Rothschild does whatever it damn well pleases, irrespective of anything
sane, rational, right or wrong -- and if anyone challenges them, they either
torture them or kill them.

>Your statement above seems to answer the question, but I want to be certain
>I understand your position.

Go **** yourself in the ass.

Comprende?
>
>_invertebrate_
>

Your atmosphere will only old out for about 50 more years, after that,
please do choke to death sucking in carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, okee
dokee?

Does that anwer your question?


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:47:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

>
>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>news:n9kr73dfen7r5l2m4q163t4c42cefsclrg@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>
>>>You poor, confused thing.
>>
>> Really? The Constitution expressly says -- NOT TAX ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
>>
>> Read it, comprehend it, buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the
>> phrase
>> 'without apportionment'.
>>
>> Dumbass!
>
>If you've already answered this question, I apologize for having missed it,
>but please give a yes-or-no answer.
>
>Can the federal government collect any taxes whatsoever?

Rothschild does whatever it damn well pleases, irrespective of anything
sane, rational, right or wrong -- and if anyone challenges them, they either
torture them or kill them.

>Your statement above seems to answer the question, but I want to be certain
>I understand your position.

Go **** yourself in the ass.

Comprende?
>
>_invertebrate_
>

You've got about a thrid of the life-supporting atmosphere you had 100 years
go. Your atmosphere will only hold out for about 50 more years, after that,
please do choke to death sucking in carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Okee
dokee?

I am certain that answers your question.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:35:26 -0400, www.freedomtofascism.com <truth@r.us>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:47:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
><_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>
>>
>>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>>news:n9kr73dfen7r5l2m4q163t4c42cefsclrg@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>>> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You poor, confused thing.
>>>
>>> Really? The Constitution expressly says -- NOT TAX ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
>>>
>>> Read it, comprehend it, buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the
>>> phrase
>>> 'without apportionment'.
>>>
>>> Dumbass!
>>
>>If you've already answered this question, I apologize for having missed it,
>>but please give a yes-or-no answer.
>>
>>Can the federal government collect any taxes whatsoever?
>
>Rothschild does whatever it damn well pleases, irrespective of anything
>sane, rational, right or wrong -- and if anyone challenges them, they either
>torture them or kill them.
>
>>Your statement above seems to answer the question, but I want to be certain
>>I understand your position.
>
>Go **** yourself in the ass.
>
>Comprende?
>>
>>_invertebrate_
>>
>
>You've got about a third of the life-supporting atmosphere you had 100 years
>go. Your atmosphere will only hold out for about 50 more years, after that,
>please do choke to death sucking in carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Okee
>dokee?
>
>I am certain that answers your question.

Here ya go:

http://www.truehealth.org/oxydecl.html

The Decline of Atmospheric free Oxygen

Since we have begun to measure in 1989, there has been a steady decline of
free oxygen in our atmosphere. And while this is nothing more than expected,
since every molecule of additional carbon dioxide locks up two oxygen atoms,
the free oxygen decline is greater than the carbon dioxide lock-up.

The greater than expected overall free oxygen decline is proof that the
Earth's photosynthetic capacity has declined. And since there has been no
measurable decline in plankton, and consequently, in marine photosynthesis,
as long expected and measured due to the increase of hard UVB radiation at
surface level, the decline points straight at the only other source of free
oxygen - the forests and green cover of the continents.

This is entirely as I had fully expected and predicted (see ON THE RECORD in
the climate section) - based upon the law of Progressive Complexity.
However, in 1985 there were no indications whatsoever of any decline in the
free oxygen content of our atmosphere, and my initial predictions were
dismissed out of hand. Here then are three graphs from "Seasonal and
interannual variations in atmospheric oxygen and implications for the global
carbon cycle", by Ralph F Keeling & Stephen R. Shertz, at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, as published in
"Nature", Aug. 27. 1992.


Taken at La Jolla, California, the upper curve shows the decline in
atmospheric oxygen, and the lower curve shows the increase in atmospheric
carbon dioxide over the period from January 1989 to January 1992. The axes
are scaled (5 per meg=1p.p.m. so that the two factors are directly
comparable (mol O2 to mol CO2). Most significantly, the observed annual (as
opposed to seasonal) decline in atmospheric oxygen at La Jolla is about
double the rate as would be expected from carbon dioxide lock-up alone.


Taken at Cape Grim in the Southern hemisphere, the overall atmospheric free
oxygen decline is an astonishing 95 times greater than expected from the
increase in carbon dioxide (~96 per meg versus ~ 1 p.p.m). This is also as
fully expected since most of the continental landmass by far - and the free
oxygen regeneration capacity of their forests - lies in the northern
hemisphere. The free oxygen decline in the northern hemisphere will begin to
match that of the southern hemisphere as the forests of the northern
hemisphere are further decimated.


Taken at Alert Bay, in the arctic circle of Northern Canada. The large dips
and peaks of the seasonal variations in the northern hemisphere closely
match the seasonal variation caused by the cessation of free oxygen
regeneration by the deciduous component of terrestrial forests over the
winter months. In the southern hemisphere, the seasonal dips and peaks of
atmospheric free oxygen are caused primarily by the seasonal flux and flow
of marine photosynthesis, and the temperature-driven seasonal up welling and
down draft of cold water.

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

HAARP and the heavy ionization of the upper atmosphere causing O2 to combine
irrevocably with fossil fuel carbon aloft.

> A. S. Schlachter, K. H. Berkner, W. G. Graham, R. V. Pyle, P. J. Schneider,
> K. R. Stalder, J. W. Stearns, and J. A. Tanis, "Charge State Dependence of
> Electron Loss from Hydrogen by Collisions with Heavy, Highly-Stripped
>Ions," paper 2T 7, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 25 , 868 (1980).


"These German scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Nuclear Physics in
Heidelberg go on to say that their measurements "have for the first time
detected in the upper troposphere large positive ions with mass numbers up
to 2500"

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2652


Duh.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=HAARP+heavy+ionization+of+upper+atmosphere&btnG=Search






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
In our last episode, <g2lr73lomjb5auta34q9g8dk6iatvar3c4@4ax.com>, the
lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com broadcast on alt.politics:

> On 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

>>In our last episode,
>><bckr739arglckqn61foktid5kr2et362ku@4ax.com>,
>>the lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com
>>broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:22 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>>><_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>>>>news:kdar73dlgc3t8nhkbuhum5s0qcbus6g9ih@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 23 Jun 2007 22:58:12 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apportioned means assigned by a plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That does not make every plan apportionment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't try to argue that a bazillion lines of IRS code taxing
>>>>> Americans is not a plan, because you'll be laughed off the face of the
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>>Read. He said a plan isn't necessarily apportionment.
>>>>
>>>>_invertebrate_
>>
>>> What's a slimeball like you doing pimping for the IRS?
>>
>>No one is saying the IRS is on the side of the angels, only that you are
>>full of ****.

> So you're admitting defeat.

Not at all.

> Like I said -- there's no law giving anyone permission to tax the American
> citizen's incomes.

Yes, there is.

> Read the freaking Constitution, dumbass.

> It says "WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT".

It say "without apportionment among the several states." Article !, section
8, gave Congress the power to tax by apportionment among the several states.
The Sixteenth amendment gave Congress the additional power to tax without
apportionment among the several states. Congress always could lay
apportioned taxes, after the 16th it could also lay taxes without
apportionment.

> That means NO ORGANIZATION CAN SET UP ANY
> PLAN WHAT SO EVER TO INSTITUTE TAXATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

No, it doesn't. It means Congress can lay taxes by apportionment and
lay taxes without apportionment, so Congress has the power to tax either way
or both ways.

> Dumbass!

Have a nice life in federal prison --- I'm pretty sure your attempt to
build up a case that you are mentally defective will fail.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 575 days to go.
Owing to googlegroups not screening users to eliminate spammers and other
USENET abusers, I do not see most posts from googlegroups.
 
In article <slrnf7vov7.2fpk.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com>,
usenet@larseighner.com says...
>
>
>In our last episode, <g2lr73lomjb5auta34q9g8dk6iatvar3c4@4ax.com>, the
>lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> On 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>>>In our last episode,
>>><bckr739arglckqn61foktid5kr2et362ku@4ax.com>,
>>>the lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com
>>>broadcast on alt.politics:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:22 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>>>><_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>>>>>news:kdar73dlgc3t8nhkbuhum5s0qcbus6g9ih@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2007 22:58:12 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apportioned means assigned by a plan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That does not make every plan apportionment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't try to argue that a bazillion lines of IRS code taxing
>>>>>> Americans is not a plan, because you'll be laughed off the face of the
>>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read. He said a plan isn't necessarily apportionment.
>>>>>
>>>>>_invertebrate_
>>>
>>>> What's a slimeball like you doing pimping for the IRS?
>>>
>>>No one is saying the IRS is on the side of the angels, only that you are
>>>full of ****.
>
>> So you're admitting defeat.
>
>Not at all.
>
>> Like I said -- there's no law giving anyone permission to tax the American
>> citizen's incomes.
>
>Yes, there is.
>
>> Read the freaking Constitution, dumbass.
>
>> It says "WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT".
>
>It say "without apportionment among the several states." Article !, section
>8, gave Congress the power to tax by apportionment among the several states.
>The Sixteenth amendment gave Congress the additional power to tax without
>apportionment among the several states. Congress always could lay
>apportioned taxes, after the 16th it could also lay taxes without
>apportionment.
>
>> That means NO ORGANIZATION CAN SET UP ANY
>> PLAN WHAT SO EVER TO INSTITUTE TAXATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>
>No, it doesn't. It means Congress can lay taxes by apportionment and
>lay taxes without apportionment, so Congress has the power to tax either way
>or both ways.
>
>> Dumbass!
>
>Have a nice life in federal prison --- I'm pretty sure your attempt to
>build up a case that you are mentally defective will fail.

To try to clarify things, you should understand that the 16th Amendment was
passed to clarify an 1895 Supreme Court ruling, (Pollock), that income tax on
real and personal property was illegal since it wasn't an apportioned tax.

The 16th Amendment was then passed in 1913.

In the 1916 Brushaber case, The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment was
unnecessary because income tax, (on income not derived from real or personal
property), WAS Constitutional under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm

Tom
 
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:04:10 GMT, tgm <tgm3@verizon.net> wrote:


>The 16th Amendment was then passed in 1913.

No it wasn't. It was never ratified.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 25 Jun 2007 15:47:51 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

>Have a nice life in federal prison

ROFL. The IRS is a private enterprise, incorporated in Puerto
Rico.

>-- I'm pretty sure your attempt to
>build up a case that you are mentally defective will fail.

Just because you're a dumbass doesn't mean that everyone who recognizes this
is mentally defective, dumbass.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Jun 25, 8:45 pm, www.freedomtofascism.com <t...@r.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:04:10 GMT, tgm <t...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >The 16th Amendment was then passed in 1913.
>
> No it wasn't. It was never ratified.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox
proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-
quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned
federal income taxes.

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the
following states ratified the amendment:

Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the
amendment)
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
New Mexico (February 3, 1913)

Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on
February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware
and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the
following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to
forty-two:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on
March 2, 1911)

And your evidence that these states did not, in fact ratify the
Amendment is.......?

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Have all the opinions you want, they're free. Just don't confuse
them with reality."-Solomon Short.
 
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:13:47 -0700, Grendel <wsthomas@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 8:45 pm, www.freedomtofascism.com <t...@r.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:04:10 GMT, tgm <t...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >The 16th Amendment was then passed in 1913.
>>
>> No it wasn't. It was never ratified.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
>On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox
>proclaimed

Proclamations are never based in evidence.

>that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-
>quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned
>federal income taxes.
>
>According to the United States Government Printing Office, the
>following states ratified the amendment:
>
>Alabama (August 10, 1909)
>Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
>South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
>Illinois (March 1, 1910)
>Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
>Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
>Maryland (April 8, 1910)
>Georgia (August 3, 1910)
>Texas (August 16, 1910)
>Ohio (January 19, 1911)
>Idaho (January 20, 1911)
>Oregon (January 23, 1911)
>Washington (January 26, 1911)
>Montana (January 27, 1911)
>Indiana (January 30, 1911)
>California (January 31, 1911)
>Nevada (January 31, 1911)
>South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
>Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
>North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
>Colorado (February 15, 1911)
>North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
>Michigan (February 23, 1911)
>Iowa (February 24, 1911)
>Kansas (March 2, 1911)
>Missouri (March 16, 1911)
>Maine (March 31, 1911)
>Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
>Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the
>amendment)
>Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
>New York (July 12, 1911)
>Arizona (April 3, 1912)
>Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
>Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
>West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
>New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
>
>Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on
>February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware
>and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the
>following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to
>forty-two:
>
>37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
>38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
>39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
>40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
>41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
>42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on
>March 2, 1911)
>
>And your evidence that these states did not, in fact ratify the
>Amendment is.......?

Ohio wasn't a state. Ratification is null and void because 3/4's of the
states didn't ratify it.

>
>Yol Bolsun,
>Grendel.
>
>"Have all the opinions you want, they're free. Just don't confuse
>them with reality."-Solomon Short.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:13:47 -0700, Grendel <wsthomas@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 8:45 pm, www.freedomtofascism.com <t...@r.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:04:10 GMT, tgm <t...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >The 16th Amendment was then passed in 1913.
>>
>> No it wasn't. It was never ratified.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
>On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox
>proclaimed

Proclamations are never based in evidence.

>that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-
>quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned
>federal income taxes.
>
>According to the United States Government Printing Office, the
>following states ratified the amendment:
>
>Alabama (August 10, 1909)
>Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
>South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
>Illinois (March 1, 1910)
>Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
>Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
>Maryland (April 8, 1910)
>Georgia (August 3, 1910)
>Texas (August 16, 1910)
>Ohio (January 19, 1911)
>Idaho (January 20, 1911)
>Oregon (January 23, 1911)
>Washington (January 26, 1911)
>Montana (January 27, 1911)
>Indiana (January 30, 1911)
>California (January 31, 1911)
>Nevada (January 31, 1911)
>South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
>Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
>North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
>Colorado (February 15, 1911)
>North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
>Michigan (February 23, 1911)
>Iowa (February 24, 1911)
>Kansas (March 2, 1911)
>Missouri (March 16, 1911)
>Maine (March 31, 1911)
>Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
>Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the
>amendment)
>Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
>New York (July 12, 1911)
>Arizona (April 3, 1912)
>Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
>Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
>West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
>New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
>
>Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on
>February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware
>and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the
>following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to
>forty-two:
>
>37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
>38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
>39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
>40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
>41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
>42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on
>March 2, 1911)
>
>And your evidence that these states did not, in fact ratify the
>Amendment is.......?

3/4 of the states didn't ratify the 16th amendment.

Read:

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and
requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress.
There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative
action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913,
Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38
states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed,
to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After
traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the
journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not
ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in
Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of
evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of
State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the
Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the
Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the
ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox
claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of
9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a
precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any
proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited
every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and
legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged
in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment
proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states
were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to
the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects
tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were
to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would
still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
news:6iat73ppdbml7n84usl5n96msdp6e1nm4h@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:47:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>
>>
>>"www.freedomtofascism.com" <truth@r.us> wrote in message
>>news:n9kr73dfen7r5l2m4q163t4c42cefsclrg@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:35:12 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
>>> <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You poor, confused thing.
>>>
>>> Really? The Constitution expressly says -- NOT TAX ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
>>>
>>> Read it, comprehend it, buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the
>>> phrase
>>> 'without apportionment'.
>>>
>>> Dumbass!
>>
>>If you've already answered this question, I apologize for having missed
>>it,
>>but please give a yes-or-no answer.
>>
>>Can the federal government collect any taxes whatsoever?
>
> Rothschild does whatever it damn well pleases, irrespective of anything
> sane, rational, right or wrong -- and if anyone challenges them, they
> either
> torture them or kill them.

I could have phrased my question more precisely ("Is the federal government
Constitutionally permitted to..."), but you understood what I meant.

Your answer might be accurately summarized as "no," but I can't be sure. I
did ask for a yes-or-no answer.

>>Your statement above seems to answer the question, but I want to be
>>certain
>>I understand your position.
>
> Go **** yourself in the ass.
>
> Comprende?

I certainly understand the content of your statement, but not your
motivation in making it.

> You've got about a thrid of the life-supporting atmosphere you had 100
> years
> go. Your atmosphere will only hold out for about 50 more years, after
> that,
> please do choke to death sucking in carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Okee
> dokee?
>
> I am certain that answers your question.

Of course it doesn't, you awful little creature. It was a complete non
sequitur, and you have shown yourself incapable of having a reasoned
discussion.

I was curious what would make you think the Congress would draft a
Constitution forbidding them to collect federal taxes. I thought you might
have something interesting to say on the subject. It was obviously foolish
of me to think so. This discussion appears to be distressing you too much
to allow you to respond coherently, so I won't pursue the subject further.

_invertebrate_
 
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:52:47 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:

>I was curious what would make you think the Congress would draft a
>Constitution forbidding them to collect federal taxes.

You'd have a long way to go to achieve knowledge and truth.

Without knowledge and truth, you can not survive.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:56:00 -0400, www.freedomtofascism.com <truth@r.us>
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:52:47 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
><_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
>
>>I was curious what would make you think the Congress would draft a
>>Constitution forbidding them to collect federal taxes.
>
>You'd have a long way to go to achieve knowledge and truth.
>
>Without knowledge and truth, you can not survive.

Lies, the suppression of truth and the sequestering of knowledge are the
cause of your planet losing its atmosphere.

There are many who made the decisions which caused this, and they are
guilty.

It's that simple, albeit too late.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
In our last episode, <ant083pjtq6g1spnts0lil2qa4th2dcps5@4ax.com>, the
lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com broadcast on alt.politics:

> Ohio wasn't a state. Ratification is null and void because 3/4's of the
> states didn't ratify it.

Nonsense. Thomas Jefferson signed the law making Ohio a state in 1803.
The Senate received senators from Ohio, the House admitted representatives
from Ohio. Your theory would have it that no act of Congress has been legal
since Worthington and Smith were seated in the Senate in 1803.

Sorry, it doesn't wash. It hasn't washed in the courts.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 574 days to go.
Owing to googlegroups not screening users to eliminate spammers and other
USENET abusers, I do not see most posts from googlegroups.
 
In our last episode,
<pur0835fig4ebiqsldfhk5gcrdb9sv085i@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com
broadcast on alt.politics:

> On 25 Jun 2007 15:47:51 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

>>Have a nice life in federal prison

> ROFL. The IRS is a private enterprise, incorporated in Puerto
> Rico.

The shiny side of the tinfoil goes on the outside .


--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 574 days to go.
Owing to googlegroups not screening users to eliminate spammers and other
USENET abusers, I do not see most posts from googlegroups.
 
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf817mn.2hva.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode,
> <pur0835fig4ebiqsldfhk5gcrdb9sv085i@4ax.com>,
> the lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com
> broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> On 25 Jun 2007 15:47:51 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>>>Have a nice life in federal prison
>
>> ROFL. The IRS is a private enterprise, incorporated in Puerto
>> Rico.
>
> The shiny side of the tinfoil goes on the outside .

There must be a ranch in Idaho or Nevada or someplace that grows these
woo-woos. Seems like for every one that grows up or goes to jail, another
one pops up in their place.

Jim
 
On 26 Jun 2007 05:05:20 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

Your new world order has seen its hay day. Its all down hill from here for
your Ubermasters.

You need to develop FTL travel so your Ubermasters can survive on another
planet. You've got less than 10 years before there won't be enough
intelligence left to assist them.

Be wary of other life out there in the Universe, they don't like Nazis.

Get busy.

>In our last episode,
><pur0835fig4ebiqsldfhk5gcrdb9sv085i@4ax.com>,
>the lovely and talented www.freedomtofascism.com
>broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> On 25 Jun 2007 15:47:51 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>>>Have a nice life in federal prison
>
>> ROFL. The IRS is a private enterprise, incorporated in Puerto
>> Rico.
>
>The shiny side of the tinfoil goes on the outside .


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
US, European Union demand South Sudan adhere to cease-fire
Replies
0
Views
18
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Failure to get Syria cease-fire stole spotlight at UN
Replies
0
Views
23
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Fijian on trial for trying to sell China defense devices
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
U.S. native groups promised input on development as pipeline dispute looms
Replies
0
Views
31
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
US claims antiquities looted by IS to block their resale
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top