Tag Archives: Donald Trump (@POTUS)

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump @POTUS), President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington. D.C. 20500, has a letter dated August 7, 2017, sent to him, regarding the CORRUPT Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews #IRS) LIARS misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States two (2) opinions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Edward D. White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916, on the I.R.S. web-site


August 7, 2017

President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington. D.C. 20500

Why, since at least January 2015, have the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) l I a R S been allowed to MISQUOTE the two (2) UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opinions of Mr. Chief Justice Edward D. White, on the I.R.S. web-site; which is under the direction of the Department of the Treasury❓

Brushaber v. Union Pacific | Stanton v. Baltic Mining
No. 140____________________ | No. 359
240 U.S. 1 (14 pages) | 240 U.S. 103 (7 pages)
36 S.Ct. 236______________ | 36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed 493_______________ | 60 L.Ed. 546

I would appreciate your attention to this matter

Thank you, hugely

Sincerely

Copy:

Jeff Sessions
Office of the U.S. Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Steve Mnuchin
Secretary of the Treasury
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) Headquarters
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 469
Washington, D.C. 20005

John R. Koskinen
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Internal Revenue Service

Washington, D.C. 20224


THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS

JANUARY 2015

These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

January 2015

FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL

C. The Meaning of Certain Terms Used in the Internal Revenue Code

2. Contention: The “United States” consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-A-to-C

2.

The Law:

The Supreme Court has “recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
The Supreme Court has

“recognized that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves”
………………………………………………..
THIS is a FALSE STATEMENT
——————————————————————
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally | US Law

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 – FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS | US Law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47
_________________________________________________
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)

(citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
This is a False Statement
………………………………………………..
Pages 12-19 do NOT support this False Statement
——————————————————————
Page 11 clearly shows why the above is a False Statement
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Edward D. White, Chief Justice

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

vi

Table of Cases Reported

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. . . . . 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915—Decided January 24, 1916

(1)

(Argued the same days as the Stanton Case)

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 9

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

240 U.S. 10

Opinion of the Court

We are of opinion, how-

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 11

Opinion of the Court

ever, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
_________________________________________________
TRANSLATION:
………………………………………………..
It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR A hitherto unknown POWER OF TAXATION, that is, A POWER TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX WHICH ALTHOUGH DIRECT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION OF APPORTIONMENT applicable to all other direct taxes”
——————————————————————
(The IRS Assumption is Erroneous)
_________________________________________________
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.
240 U.S. 1
36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
60 L.Ed. 493
(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________

xi

Table of Cases Reported

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. . . . . 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY

No. 359. Argued October 14, 15, 1915.—Decided February 21, 1916

Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1

(Argued the same days as the Brushaber Case)

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 107

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Brushaber Case)

240 U.S. 112

Opinion of the Court

(1) That as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, …

(Same wrong opinion as IRS)

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is wrong)

But aside from the obvious error of the proposition intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 113

Opinion of the Court

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment …

(The Court says the position of the IRS is an OBVIOUS ERROR)
_________________________________________________
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
240 U.S. 103
36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed. 546
(1916)
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
======================================
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html
_________________________________________________

Advertisements