THE most important supreme court case in our nations history about to begin

Is there any evidence backing up this information?

reply to post by pluckynoonez



He also said that the Consitution was nothing but a "scrap of paper." Which, to be fair, is all it really is now. The Constitution was suspended by President Roosevelt in 1933 when Congress granted him emergency powers. Only a President can return power to Congress and restore authority to the Constitution. No President ever has.

EVIDENCE:

This is the link to the US Supreme Courts online docket information system showing the aforementioned cases set for hearing. Clicking on the link to each docket in the system will bring you to the synopsis page.

search.access.gpo.gov...

PS We will be in "limbo" until December 26 which is the first due date of any response by the court. Be aware, December 26 is obviously right after Christmas, so expect the court to lay over the decision until early January of 2008.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by DisabledVet]

Alright, my initial post was too harsh. It wasn't right for me to accuse this group of attention whoredom and I can't say for sure that this group doesn't deserve the limelight, although I still believe everything else I put in that post is true.

I am not sure why people are so naive to even notice the American people are being attacked at a new level....It seems we are beiing ambushed with all kinds of new challenges each day .....It is obvious to me that our current tax system is a complete sham that is enforced by thugs that do want their controllers tell them to do the tax system is uninterpretable and most of us have absolutely no idea on what is legal and what is illegal or even if we do them right in the first place....And if we do make a mistake you have absolutely no chance of getting any money back if the IRS decides you underpayed....Their word is final unless you have enough money in the bank to fight them which is alot.....They just come into your bank account and take what they decide you owe them.....I think it is all clearly by design.....Kinda sad and all we do is keep on paying without any kind of reason excpet fear they will take everyhting you have if you do not pay them.......

My first thought when I read this was "This is great! But how is this really gunna change anything, considering the secret government isn't being put on trial here, corporate America isn't being put on trial here, but a puppet government is being put on trial. A puppet government that will soon change puppets."

I dunno, seems like a waste of time trying to use the "legal" methods of changing things anymore. If more people would see the obvious, they will see that we're up against more than just greedy theifs in suits. The real hands will find a way to slip back into our pockets, even if this case succeeds... which it really won't. The Supreme Courts themselves are a part of this corrupt joke of a system.

posted on 1-12-2007 @ 10:08 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:


The Constitution was suspended in 1933 and has never be reinstated by any American President. Congress has tried to cover this fact and restore some measure of legitimacy to itself by declaring the invocation of emergency powers by Roosevelt as now resting in dormancy, but only a President can actually restore Constitutional authority. No President ever has. See link under "signature."


signature

If this is truly the case, and by all accounts it does seem to be, then should the American people collectively either a) elect a president that would reinstate our constitution, or b) do exactly what is being done in the original post.....petition for a redress of grievences. By the way, just curious to see how many believe that ANY current presidential candidate could, (and would) realistically bring this about during their term as president. So how about it? Who do you think could/would get the job done and reinstate the constitution?

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There is no law that mkes working people liable for taxes.

They have NO LAW on their side..thats why they always say" Well, we have some court decisions "..nonsense!! If there were a law, they could point to it and say " See, it says here that ALL citizens MUST pay taxes on their labor and they owe us some of whatever they get, no matter how they get it.

How about the law known in some quarters as the United States Code?

26 USC 1 imposes a tax on individuals' "taxable income."

26 USC 63 defines taxable income as "gross income" less deductions allowable under the Internal Revenue Code.

26 USC 61(a): "gross income means all income from whatever source derived, included (but not limited to) the following items: (1) compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items."

See, it says here that ALL citizens MUST pay taxes on their labor.

Is this related to the case be the author of The Federal Zone? Where the court refused to hear evidence that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified? I thought they already tried something like this a few years ago and it got no where?

It actually does not matter if Title 26 was legitimate because it has never been enacted into "Positive Law", thus it only applies within Federal Zones.

reply to post by Jim_Kraken


I think, looking at this on its face, I have to agree. Because of its placement in the First Amendment (an amendment dealing with the free expression of ideas), I expect that this text probably refers to laws abridging protesting. I do not see an affirmative right to petition the government or sue the government.

reply to post by eyewitness86


I would suggest these posts that I did on the subject. They list federal court cases that effectively undermine those positions.

reply to post by jackinthebox


the 1933 act was rendered ineffective by returning dormancy to Satutory Authority, even thoguh this was pursuant to Article II Constitutional Authority it cannot subsequently be re-established because that President is dead.... This makes the 1933 Act null and Void

By the way if you do not think our Constitutional powers are in effect why is the Government allowing the Public to sue Police Officers for Constitutional violations. Or going Crazy over the President violating the Constitution. Why did the Lawyers just agree on an impeachment legislation (From the Constitution) if they do not need it.

IF IT IS NOT in Effect than why are Government Official being held to it.............Go BAck and read the Emergency Powers Act and get back to me......

I believe the most important case before the Supreme Court is the case of private ownership of guns in Washington, D.C.

While I am no constitution expert, or even privy to what's happening in the supreme court, I am aware that there is a perverse lack of respect for the laws of the country by elected officials. The regular reoccuring machinations going on in Washinton DC are a clear indicator, that they fear no reprisals, and feel they can skirt justice.
Same thing applies to the lawyers who can get the wealthy off from their heinous crimes, and celebrities released from jail, just because of who they are. Two sets of justice for two groups of people. The rich and powerful usually can get off, while the poor slob gets the book thrown at him.
Every one knows there is no equal justice for all. It is slanted and heavily weighted in the favor of the elites.
To then find out that the constitution was suspended and never reinstated adds up, and sheds light on the attitude that runs pervasive thoughout the legal system. They really all are running rough shod over our rights and freedoms, without any fears.
Gun rights are a huge burr in the ass of the government. They'd love nothing more than to slap us around even harder, if they knew we could not revolt with firearms. When the people have nothing but sticks and stones to fight back against an armed bully regime, you have no rights but those the ruling heads of state are willing to grant you, IF you behave.
I think we the people are in for a monumental fight for our rights fairly soon.
There is something tainting the wind for our future as American's, and it stinks something awful. The source of the stench is coming from Washinton DC...

UFOBH

[edit on 5-2-2008 by UFOBountyHunter]

reply to post by Jim_Kraken

Much ado about nothing and in my opinion a bunch of attention whoredom by probably a libertarian group seeking an undeserved limelight.

Thank you so much Mr J/K, for telling it like it is! Concise. Succinct. Accurate. This is a long standing claim made by fraudulent booksellers of the Far Far Right Wing in America. BS is too polite a description. It's the illegitimate twin to the old (and dumb) argument that has finally died, that the 16th Amendment is "unconstitutional." Ipso facto, you don't have to pay Federal taxes. Crapola. A Rush Limbaugh theme.

[edit on 2/6/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite
It is unfortunatly true 42 of the then 48 states ratified the 16th amendment meeting the 3/4 requirement to be enacted! But it did violate the constitution

reply to post by azblack

" . . states ratified the 16th amendment meeting the 3/4 requirement to be enacted! But it did violate the constitution.

Au contraire. Any part of the US Con that was not consistent with the 16th amendment was altered, modified or deleted, to make it conform to the 16th amendment. That is why the phrase “ . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration . . “ is included in the amendment.

Amendment XVI. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Effective February 25, 1913. New Mexico became the 36th state to ratify on February 3, 1913. That put it “over the top” and into the US Con.

Some people have asserted the 16th amendment was not constitutionally adopted. They rely on 1) Ohio approved the amendment on January 11, 1911. 2) West Virginia was the 35th state to approve it on January 13, 1913.

1) In the 1970s, someone found that the documents admitting Ohio into the Union in 1803 had never been signed. Anti-16th amendment advocates assert that therefore, Ohio’s ratification was invalid. This claim has been rejected outright - without argument, court’s won’t let it stand as a defense - and the documents have now been signed.

2) On June 20, 1863, the breakaway 27 western counties of Virginia were admitted into the Union as West Virginia. Anti-tax advocates rely on the US Con, Article 4, Section 3. “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Virginia’s legislature had seceded from the Union in 1861. The Supreme Court held that it [Virginia] had no standing or rights to make a claim under the Constitution for actions taken in 1863, and that defense has likewise been summarily rejected.

I assure you, if the IRS correctly determines you owe the US Government, you will pay. As for the claim of Emergency Powers in 1933 still being in effect, that power was used to close the nation's banks. Within a week the bamks began to reopen. As you can see around you, the banks are still open. The US Con is NOT in suspension. Trust me. It is being seriously abused by Bush43, but I hope we can fix that starting in 2009.

[edit on 2/22/2008 by donwhite]