Sue The Fed Discussion Thread

Hi ATSers, I need your skills and impressions in evaluating the following. I am NOT recruiting for or marketing this organization. Rather, I am interested to learn if the legal grounds are sound. I recently heard about a movement to launch a massive national class action lawsuit against the Federal Reserve and its directors. The effort is being modeled after the tobacco litigation. The goals are pretty ambitious:

Our Mission Statement

Our Mission is to lead, organize, fund and manage an ongoing series of class action lawsuits directed against the Federal Reserve System (“FRS”), a PRIVATELY OWNED, FOR-PROFIT central bank, and its Officers, Directors, Owners, Agents, and Primary Member Banks and all Controlling Persons in those organizations who have damaged America's economy and its citizens through the perpetration and promotion of the fatally flawed banking and monetary system in the United States.

Our Objectives

To: a) obtain revocation of the Federal Reserve’s charter; b) recover all paid in interest and other monies due for all living US Persons, companies and governmental bodies which were inappropriately obtained by the FRS; c) eliminate all Federal, State and Municipal Debts to the FRS, and d) obtain punitive damages for the payment of: 1) court costs and attorneys fees; 2) contingency fees for network litigators, and 3) pro rata distributions of the proceeds to the American Citizenry based on their loan history for the total years as are allowed by statute.

www.suethefed.com...

Any thoughts on whether this would be worth getting in involved in, would be appreciated. I am an attorney, and am intrigued. As I learn more, I will update this thread. If any of you can figure out who the founder is, that would be a good start.

Here is what I know:

The website is run by an organization called PatriotStorm, LLC. This entity was set in June, 2010 here in Florida.

Florida Division of Corporations

The Manager of the LLC is Richard Davis. The Events link on the web site has him as the Founder for radio interviews. From his blog entry in April:

The Patriot Storm - The Sleeper Has Awakened

I, like so many it seems, have been politically asleep nearly all my life. It was only two years ago that I began to wake up... and I still have some sleep in my eyes.

God what a mess we have made of things.

I think Ben Franklin was right when responding to a woman who asked: "What kind of government did you give us?" and he replied - "A republic madam, if you can keep it!"

I fear we have almost let our founders down entirely. We have not been vigilant, we have not kept the faith.

But it is not too late. Yes, the Progressive juggernaut is boring down on the Constitution and America at lightning pace, but we still have time to stop it. The question is - do we have the courage??

I know that I do...

Over the next few weeks, this blog will begin to outline what we can do to stop the madness. It will bring a call to action for every Patriot among us. It will identify the real enemy that preys upon our minds and hearts. It will lay a course to victory.

Now is not the time for whining... it is the time for winning. Few people seem to think in those terms today. But they are wrong. We must encourage them not to give up. We must lend them our strength and courage. Let's pick them up onto our shoulders and carry them with us until they too can see what must be done. For it will take all of us, working together, to cut the head off the serpent.

I have a powerful workable plan. Mechanically, it is simple to execute. In fact its power lies in its simplicity. But we must get off of our heels. We need to become the aggressor and move onto the offense. They are trying to divert us from the real problem, the one single problem that lies at the root of the worst of our ills. The problem is not Obama, or Congress, or jobs, or health care... The problem is debt; or more precisely where it came from and who it's owed to and most importantly why we have debt at all. There is another way.

Will you join me? Will you do what is required? Can you do it peaceably, with resolve and fortitude and stand unwaveringly to reclaim your liberty.

We have the truth behind us and our children's generation before us. It's time to take a stand... It's time to dig in. It's time to realize that if you don't - the lamp of freedom will die, and all of us along with it. Patriots, are you ready to reclaim your birthright? Today we begin...

patriotstorm.blogspot.com...

Apparently Richard Davis is a medical doctor, holds several hundred patents, and is retired Navy. Found that on a link from the site to a tea party site, but that link has since disappeared. Need to know more about this guy.

Peace,

greenorbs

reply to post by greenorbs

“Top 20” Potential Civil Causes of Action:


1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
2. Breach of Contract
3. Conducting a Ponzi Scheme
4. Theft
5. Tortuous Interference
6. Unlawful seizure of Account holders funds
7. Accounting malpractice
8. Fraud in the Inducement
9. Banking Fraud
10. Consumer Protection Fraud
11. Detrimental Reliance
12. Gross Negligence
13. Unjust Enrichment
14. Failure to Perform
15. Deceptive Business Practices
16. Unconscionability
17. Willful Infliction of Emotional Distress
18. Against Public Policy
19. Securities Fraud
20. Other

www.suethefed.com...

In metaphorical terms, let me refer to the act of suing the FED as a single "War".

Yet, everywhere around us today. There are hundreds of wars going on.

People are fighting over every aspect of society and the government wants to control those aspects.

It's like everything is up for grabs right now.

This is just one more drop in the bucket.

I suppose we are nearing the tipping point in our civilization.

Somethings got to give.
You cannot have countless entities applying pressure on each other without something eventually caving in.

The Internal Revenue Service does not have the Jurisdiction to *DEFINE* constitutional Terms.

Constitutional Terms such as "Income"

This is the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Income, as Defined by Supreme Court Decisions is Corporate, rather than Compensatory Income.

Our current Income Tax (US) is unconstitutional, because it is applied to Compensation, which is *NOT* "Income", no matter HOW the IRS defines "Income"


This is called "Checks and Balances"

Only the Supreme Court has the authority to define Constitutional Terms.


However... the Statute DOES apply to Government Employees, and Beneficiaries.


And if you are participating in Social Security, then I am talking about you.

-Edrick (0V7aUT13qtM)

reply to post by Edrick

The Internal Revenue Service does not have the Jurisdiction to *DEFINE* constitutional Terms.

Constitutional Terms such as "Income"

This is the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

It is no more the jurisdiction of The Supreme Court than it is Congress to define the term "income". In fact, it was Eisner v. Macomber that explained why income can not be statutorily defined, nor can it be defined by case law. Here is how the Eisner Court explains it:

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

The fact of the matter is that Congress has not defined income, which is why if you turn to the tax code you will find that what is defined is "taxable income", "gross income" and "adjusted gross income", but income itself is not defined, and it is not defined by the courts either. The Supreme Court turned to the ordinary usage of the term defined by regular dictionary's in order to define income.

The reason Congress has not defined income is based upon a very sound principle of Constitutional law, well recognized by The Supreme Court, and evidenced in the Eisner ruling. The term "income" is used in the 16th Amendment, and since the Constitution granted Congress limited powers, Congress has no authority to make the Constitution, or any word in it, whatever Congress would like it to mean. If Congress were allowed to define any word in the Constitution however they want it defined, that document would not have any meaning in terms of the restrictions it places on the three branches. For this reason, The SCOTUS can no more define a word written in the Constitution than Congress can, and whatever words are written in this document must have the same meaning as they had at the time it was written.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Not Quite, I'm afraid.

In cases such as this, with the word "Income" being the Justification in the US constitution by:

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.

The Internal Revenue service does not have the jurisdiction to define what IS and is NOT "Income".

So, them DEFINING, income, or Taxable Income... is unconstitutional.

We look to the Supreme court to arbitrate on these matters.


The Judicial Branch has the authority to INTERPRET the law.... the IRS does not.


Income, as defined by Supreme Court Decisions Means: Corporate Gains, and Stock Gains.

Not Compensation for an exchange of ones time.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


You, as a point of law, are mistaken on several facts. Before I correct those mistakes, allow me to point out where you are correct. It is true that government employees, and beneficiaries of government have been made liable for the so called "Personal Income tax". Where you are mistaken is in first declaring the income tax to be unconstitutional. Both Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad, and Stanton v Baltic Mining made it perfectly clear what the purpose of the 16th Amendment was, and it should be noted that the term "income" within the 16th Amendment has not been defined.

The unconstitutionality of the so called "Personal Income Tax" does not lie in how it is written, it lies in how it is being enforced. You are correct that the IRS has taken to defining "income" by their own whims, and even have taken to re-interpreting case law, such as Brushaber and Stanton, not to mention that several lower courts have done the same.

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about defining "taxable income" since that term is a phrase invented by Congress. It is a term invented to create a tautological and circumlocutory Three Card Monty in order to confuse the average person. Your mistake is in granting The Supreme Court jurisdiction where none exists. Income does not require definition by The SCOTUS since it means what it meant when the 16th Amendment was written, which is precisely what it means today.

Your insistence that only the courts can interpret law is a huge mistake. It should first be noted that all three branches of government officials are required to take an oath of office, and a part of that oath is to uphold the Constitution. Implicit in such an oath is the ability to interpret the Constitution. That ability to interpret the Constitution does not in anyway excuse misinterpretation. But, The SCOTUS alone, is not the sole arbiter of interpretation, and most importantly, by insisting they are, you necessarily insist that we the people have no authority to interpret the Constitution ourselves.

The most important thing about this mistake of fact, and misinterpretation of law, is that, at any given time, it is possible for the SCOTUS, and indeed, all too often the SCOTUS has ruled against the people in favor of government authority. What if the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd Amendment means a "collective" right "granted" to militias, and does not protect the right of the individual to keep and bare arms? Should the people just roll over and accept this ruling? Did the people roll over and accept the SCOTUS ruling regarding the 18th Amendment? Hell no, they did not, and told the federal government to piss off. Because the people told the federal government to piss off regarding the 18th Amendment it has since been repealed.

Income has not been defined by the SCOTUS, and as is evidenced by the Eisner ruling, income means what it meant at the time it was written in the 16th Amendment. The Supreme Court did not define income, but instead turned to the "ordinary usage" of the term to clarify its meaning.

Your insistence on attempting to define income as meaning "corporate gains" or "stock gains" and distinguishing that from compensation is a "taxpayer" argument. It is folly to make "taxpayer" arguments regarding the income tax, as "taxpayers" have been clearly defined by the code. You can not grant jurisdiction only to turn around and challenge jurisdiction. If you hope to effectively challenge jurisdiction, you must do so all the way. Otherwise, you will fall into their carefully woven and intricate trap.

You want a term defined by The Supreme Court? Try "Non-Taxpayer" as defined by the Court, this will get you further than your "Taxpayer" arguments will.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about defining "taxable income" since that term is a phrase invented by Congress.

Well, there is nothing wrong with ME defining "Taxable Income" either.... that does not grant it Legal Merit though.

Your mistake is in granting The Supreme Court jurisdiction where none exists.

No, I think that they have jurisdiction over arbitration in terms of deciding WHAT LAWS MEAN.

I mean, we take cases such as this TO the supreme court to ARRIVE at legal conclusions that form the basis of Legal Language.

I.E. Blacks Law Dictionary.

Income does not require definition by The SCOTUS since it means what it meant when the 16th Amendment was written, which is precisely what it means today.

Yes, but since the IRS is applying this word INCORRECTLY, then we can use the supreme court to set it right.

To "Define" the word in Case Law History.

PRECEDENT.

Your insistence that only the courts can interpret law is a huge mistake.

Only courts *CAN* interpret the law.

We don't allow Police officers to be Judge, Jury, and executioner.

We have to haul criminals in before a COURT OF LAW, to see if they *ARE* guilty of breaking the law....

It is called DUE PROCESS.

It should first be noted that all three branches of government officials are required to take an oath of office, and a part of that oath is to uphold the Constitution. Implicit in such an oath is the ability to interpret the Constitution.

Ok, I see where we are having the misunderstanding....

When I say "Interpret" the law, I mean set legal precedents about how the law is applied.

Which is the Jurisdiction of the COURTS.

The most important thing about this mistake of fact, and misinterpretation of law, is that, at any given time, it is possible for the SCOTUS, and indeed, all too often the SCOTUS has ruled against the people in favor of government authority. What if the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd Amendment means a "collective" right "granted" to militias, and does not protect the right of the individual to keep and bare arms? Should the people just roll over and accept this ruling? Did the people roll over and accept the SCOTUS ruling regarding the 18th Amendment? Hell no, they did not, and told the federal government to piss off. Because the people told the federal government to piss off regarding the 18th Amendment it has since been repealed.

You have a very good point, and a valuable perspective, actually.


But I stand behind what I said.

Income has not been defined by the SCOTUS, and as is evidenced by the Eisner ruling, income means what it meant at the time it was written in the 16th Amendment. The Supreme Court did not define income, but instead turned to the "ordinary usage" of the term to clarify its meaning.

Yes, and the people behind the IRS are trying to CHANGE the "Ordinary Usage" of the term Income, to make it include "Compensation".


They are trying to Interpret Constitutional Terms, when it is beyond their jurisdiction.

You want a term defined by The Supreme Court? Try "Non-Taxpayer" as defined by the Court, this will get you further than your "Taxpayer" arguments will.

So, you have studied the Freeman Movement?

Please, Do go on!

This is Fascinating!

-Edrick

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is just one more drop in the bucket.

You're either kidding, ignorant about the Fed or misleading... the Federal Reserve is the apex of the subterfuge over America. If the Fed is abolished and all the reparations suggested by the OP are implemented by the courts, the whole house of cards with come tumbling down.

"Drop in the bucket"



[edit on 19-7-2010 by soleprobe]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by soleprobe]

reply to post by Edrick

Well, there is nothing wrong with ME defining "Taxable Income" either.... that does not grant it Legal Merit though.

You did not invent the term "Taxable Income" Congress did, and the definition is as such:

§ 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

There is everything wrong with you defining the term since it has been statutorily defined by Congress. If you hope to hold accountable the IRS for their whimsy, you will not accomplish this by acting whimsical yourself.

No, I think that they have jurisdiction over arbitration in terms of deciding WHAT LAWS MEAN.

If this were true, then everything would stand as starre decises, and The Supreme Court would never overturn their own rulings. The fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS does overturn their own rulings, and that serves as legal evidence that The SCOTUS is not the sole arbiter of WHAT THE LAW MEANS.

Yes, but since the IRS is applying this word INCORRECTLY, then we can use the supreme court to set it right.

The Supreme Court is the Final Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to decide which cases it will consider. Do you really want to risk the chance that the SCOTUS will decline to hear your case?

Only courts *CAN* interpret the law.

This is a willful granting of jurisdiction you are making, you have no Constitutional authority to impose this decision on I or any other person who rejects your opinion. I say the 2nd Amendment clearly acknowledges all peoples inalienable right to keep and bare arms and I don't give a crap what The Supreme Court say's about it, hence, my cold dead hands. Get it?

We don't allow Police officers to be Judge, Jury, and executioner.

We don't afford the SCOTUS the same privilege either.

We have to haul criminals in before a COURT OF LAW, to see if they *ARE* guilty of breaking the law....

Due process of law demands those accused of such crimes be afforded a jury of their peers. Get it?

It is called DUE PROCESS.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

~5th Amendment~

This, in part, is DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

When I say "Interpret" the law, I mean set legal precedents about how the law is applied.

Again, the SCOTUS is well known for overturning their own rulings. Starre decisis is merely a suggestion, and not a standard in American jurisprudence. You do not get any "misunderstanding" at all. Legal precedents are as fixed as the duration in which they are fixed, and once they have been overturned, that precedent has no more legal authority.

You have a very good point, and a valuable perspective, actually.

Thank you. I am counting on the fact that you recognize we are on the same side, and not opponents on this issue.

Yes, and the people behind the IRS are trying to CHANGE the "Ordinary Usage" of the term Income, to make it include "Compensation".

Here is what I am trying to explain, the moment you begin distinguishing "compensation" from any other term used within the tax code, you are necessarily arguing that your interpretation of that tax code is the correct one, and that the tax enforcers are misinterpreting the code. The problem in this argument is that it is a "Taxpayer" argument. What I mean by that is that what you are arguing is that if that tax code said this instead of that you would then be liable. The problem with this argument is that the burden of proof lies upon you. If you simply challenge the jurisdiction from the get go you shift the burden of proof from you to the court party asserting jurisdiction.

There is no point in arguing that you would be liable if...the only reasonable thing to do is ask how it is you were made liable to begin with. By asking a reasonable question such as this, you necessarily shift the burden of proof and force the IRS to prove you are liable.

So, you have studied the Freeman Movement?

I have not studied the Freeman Movement, although I am often accused of this. I have studied the tax code, and I can see no where outside of the Victory Tax, and a few sections of the code regarding alcohol and tobacco. where ordinary people have actually been made liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax".

I take great pains to call it the so called "Personal Income Tax" because it is clearly not a direct tax on income, but is instead an indirect tax on some specific activity where income is merely the measurement to decide how much is owed. The manufacture or importation of alcohol and tobacco are specific activities named by the code, as is employment within the government. Also, and this is very important, it is a voluntary tax, so the willful filing of a valid tax return serves as prima facie evidence to ones liability, giving the IRS reasonable cause to enforce the law as written. Does that make sense?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What if the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd Amendment means a "collective" right "granted" to militias, and does not protect the right of the individual to keep and bare arms?

just thought i would stop you in your tracks with where you was going with the 2nd amendment. the language is pretty clear in the admendment and SCOTUS knows if they go against the 2nd amendment there would be armed revolt in the US and they would end up hanging from the light poles with a few gun shots in their bodies. its amazing what you find when you actually go read the Constitution eh? i know i know no fair i actual read the constitution and those crooks in Congress never have let alone some of the SCOTUS, see below the 2nd amendment in both forms that has been published.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

source

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
“ [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

and congress defined militias way back in 1792
source

now whether income taxes are constituional or not.. well the constitution grants congress the power to lay and enforce taxes and tarriffs and also grants them the power to collect those taxes and tarriffs. so it also gives them the authority to create a federal department to collect taxes even on income. the constitution isn't specific on what taxes congress can or cannot create. it doesn't matter how income is defined. if congress wants to tax something they have the authority to do so.

and OP as for Suing the Fed. good luck to anyone that tries, i doubt a lawsuit would get very far, they would probably claim that since they are an agent of the federal government you can't sue them. that is if you didn't have an "accident" first

And OP if you truly are a lawyer why are you asking on the internet to a bunch of armchair lawyers if the legal grounds are sound? my gut tells me this is just a money making scheme by the guy

reply to post by Mercenary2007


You have not stopped me in my tracks, and have seemingly misunderstood where I was going with the 2nd Amendment, and apparently because you have failed to read my posts clearly. Did you miss the assertion of "cold dead hands"? I need no lecture on what the 2nd Amendment says, and would further state that I need no 2nd Amendment in order to know that I have the inalienable right to keep and bare arms.

Further, I would argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep tyranny in check, and keeping and baring arms goes well beyond a pistol or shotgun. If the people are to effectively keep their own government in check, then in these modern times, it is arguable that the people have as much right to park a Harrier Jet in their backyard, or even, (God forbid), keep a nuclear arsenal in their basement.

As to the powers of taxation that Congress has, it should be noted that according to the Constitution, Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation. That power, however, is limited by a few rules. Congress must apportion all direct taxes, and must make uniform all indirect taxes. It is not I who has argued that income taxes are unconstitutional and it is not even Eldric who has necessarily argued this point. Congress had the complete and plenary power of income taxation prior to the 16th Amendment. The passage of the 16th Amendment should not be construed as any new power of taxation granted Congress.

Congress cannot by whim write any Amendment to grant themselves new power that doesn't all ready exist by Constitution. The 16th Amendment was written in direct response to The Supreme Courts decision in Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust Company, that struck down as unconstitutional the entire income portion of the Revenue Act of 1894 because it was viewed as a direct tax on income without apportionment. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent any future courts as viewing a non-apportioned income tax as anything other than an indirect tax on a specific activities.

You are mistaken when you assert that it doesn't matter how income is defined. It most certainly is important, as income is an inalienable right belonging to all people and it is dubious, at best, that Congress can tax an inalienable right, and this is why Congress has steadfastly avoided defining income. While Congress has the authority to tax anything they want, the must play by the rules set by the Constitution that gives them that authority. If they want to tax income as property, then they are required by law to apportion that tax among the several states. If they want to tax income as a measurement used on a specific activity, then this tax must be uniform throughout the states.

Since the so called "Personal Income Tax" is uniform in its nature, it should be clear it is an indirect tax on some specific activity, and if that specific activity is not named in the code, then a tax has not been levied on it. Declaring a tax has been imposed upon "Taxable Income" is tantamount to declaring a tax has been imposed on the activity of blah, blah, blah, which, in the end, is all you accomplished with your assertions.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Can you guys start another thread and debate the taxation issues there? This thread is about suing the Fed, and the new movement afoot to do so.

Thanks.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There is everything wrong with you defining the term since it has been statutorily defined by Congress. If you hope to hold accountable the IRS for their whimsy, you will not accomplish this by acting whimsical yourself.

I was under the impression that the Final LEGAL arbiter of how laws are applied (based WITHIN the system) was the supreme court.

If this were true, then everything would stand as starre decises, and The Supreme Court would never overturn their own rulings. The fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS does overturn their own rulings, and that serves as legal evidence that The SCOTUS is not the sole arbiter of WHAT THE LAW MEANS.

But, their rulings ARE held up AS the correct way to apply law, correct? (until they are overturned)

The Supreme Court is the Final Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to decide which cases it will consider. Do you really want to risk the chance that the SCOTUS will decline to hear your case?

Oh, ok.. I see what you are saying now.

You are saying that the Final Arbiter of what laws mean, is the People themselves, correct?

This is a willful granting of jurisdiction you are making, you have no Constitutional authority to impose this decision on I or any other person who rejects your opinion. I say the 2nd Amendment clearly acknowledges all peoples inalienable right to keep and bare arms and I don't give a crap what The Supreme Court say's about it, hence, my cold dead hands. Get it?

Yes, I understand... Mostly, I'm still a little hazy on some of your meanings though....

Due process of law demands those accused of such crimes be afforded a jury of their peers. Get it?

Ah, yes.... I see your point now.

Thank you. I am counting on the fact that you recognize we are on the same side, and not opponents on this issue.

Of Course!

I am still learning about this stuff, actually.

Here was my impression of the Tax Code:

Congress passes the 19tm ammendment, and SCOTUS states that the 19th gave the IRS No New Powers.

This WOULD make sense in light of the Income tax being Voluntary...

My point, was that the IRS is attempting to claim that ALL are liable for the income tax... based upon the 19th's amendment using the word "Income" and then them defining "Income" to mean whatever they WANT it to mean.

I was arguing that the IRS cannot define "Income", and have their definition be taken seriously, because THEY do not have jurisdiction to Define such terms.

I was saying that the SCOTUS DOES have jurisdiction to define terms, but perhaps it would be more accurate of me to state that SCOTUS rulings in the past have CLEARLY stated that INCOME is not actually DEFINED, as the Tax code Defines it... and thus, we are not liable.

Does that sound more accurate?

Here is what I am trying to explain, the moment you begin distinguishing "compensation" from any other term used within the tax code, you are necessarily arguing that your interpretation of that tax code is the correct one, and that the tax enforcers are misinterpreting the code. The problem in this argument is that it is a "Taxpayer" argument. What I mean by that is that what you are arguing is that if that tax code said this instead of that you would then be liable. The problem with this argument is that the burden of proof lies upon you. If you simply challenge the jurisdiction from the get go you shift the burden of proof from you to the court party asserting jurisdiction.

Yeah, I knew you were going to be full of good information...

So, you would make a jurisdiction claim?

I think that is actually what I was arguing for too...

That the average citizen does NOT have liability to pay income taxes, because they are beyond the IRS's jurisdiction.

Due to the fact that the IRS's "Jurisdiction" rests upon the faulty "definition" of Income.

They are claiming Article 1 section 8 jurisdiction (or 19th amendment if you prefer) when they actually have NO jurisdiction.

Sound about right?

There is no point in arguing that you would be liable if...the only reasonable thing to do is ask how it is you were made liable to begin with. By asking a reasonable question such as this, you necessarily shift the burden of proof and force the IRS to prove you are liable.

Indeed, that is clever....

Also, and this is very important, it is a voluntary tax, so the willful filing of a valid tax return serves as prima facie evidence to ones liability, giving the IRS reasonable cause to enforce the law as written. Does that make sense?

Indeed.... I just quoted this section here for TRUTH!

LOL!

-Edrick

reply to post by greenorbs

Can you guys start another thread and debate the taxation issues there? This thread is about suing the Fed, and the new movement afoot to do so.

Terribly sorry....

I thought that spelling out the deliberate fraud of the Federal Government in Legal terms is what you were looking for.

-Edrick

Originally posted by greenorbs
Can you guys start another thread and debate the taxation issues there? This thread is about suing the Fed, and the new movement afoot to do so.

Thanks.

Given that The Federal Reserve Act was passed in the very same year that the 16th Amendment was passed, (1913), and given both pieces of legislation were written by the same architect, (Nelson Aldrich), it would be a huge mistake to think the two are not related.

Further, you can only sue the government when the government agrees to be sued. Given that Congress won't even make the effort to audit the Fed, what makes you think the federal government would be willing to agree to a lawsuit regarding the Fed?

While petitioning for a redress of grievances is a fundamental right, so is earning income. If a federal government scoffs at the peoples right to earn income, it is not such a stretch to imagine they scoff at the right for remedy of any grievance, regarding the Fed.

As long as you and others are willing slaves to the tax code, you are not going to accomplish a thing in abolishing the Fed. Both are so tightly interwoven, that your willful and voluntary funding of it all only empowers your masters.

If you do not even know the history of the Federal Reserve, then surely you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes people made before us.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Further, you can only sue the government when the government agrees to be sued. Given that Congress won't even make the effort to audit the Fed, what makes you think the federal government would be willing to agree to a lawsuit regarding the Fed

.

No consent is needed in some areas.

The Federal Reserve has long been recognized as a private corporation for certain purposes, for example the Federal Tort Claims Act is unavailable to a person who has been injured by the negligence of a Fed employee. See Lewis v. United Sates, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982) available at Lewis v. United States.

In Lewis, the court stated "plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured." Id. at 1243.

So, an "appropriate state tort claim" is permissible. That is what I am trying to figure out, is what that would be. Maybe naming members of the Board of a regional Fed bank as defendants would work. But the legal basis is where I don't get it. Which torts would be available? Depends on the allegations.

reply to post by Edrick


I am ok with the debate now, the abstract arguments are good background from a policy perspective, which can only help the discourse on the legal grounds for bringing an action against the Fed.

reply to post by greenorbs


Even "an appropriate state tort claim" would have to somehow show that Federal Reserve Board trustees, or bank presidents, acted on bad faith. How would such a thing be proved? There is also the consideration of the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard of "plausibility". How does the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard apply to this strategy?

Legal shenanigans are legal shenanigans, and while it may sometimes be best to fight fire with fire, most often the best way to fight fire is by dousing it with water. Fueling the fire is not at all a good idea. What happens if "an appropriate state tort claim" is brought against a Federal Reserve employee and the ruling is found in favor of the defendant? What then?

Banks can not survive without depositors. Currently the interest rates on a savings account is far less than the rate of inflation, both of which are controlled by The Federal Reserve. This means that using a bank as a savings account is a loosing prospect. If a person can not create wealth by using a bank, the exactly what service is that bank providing? Credit? This has shown to be a loosing prospect for most Americans as well. If most Americans can not create wealth through savings, and have a greatly diminished credit rating due to rising interest rates on loans while interest rates on savings remains suppressed, why are most Americans doing business with banks?

Fiat currency is useless money, and there is no point in history where fiat currency has survived. The Federal Reserve has foisted upon the American people a system of fiat currency. State and federal laws have been written to favor the banking institutions and not the people. Playing by those rules, the people will lose every time. When the rules work against you, the only reasonable option is to change the rules.

Acquiescence is playing by the rules that guarantee you will lose. Non acquiescence would be changing the rules. Forget law suits, they are to cumbersome and take too long to have an positive effect, if they manage to have a positive effect at all. If your babysitter was molesting your children would you keep doing business with that babysitter? Of course, it is arguable that if a babysitter was molesting your children you would have them arrested. Perhaps that is the route to go, not a tort claim, but a verified oath accusing a Federal Reserve employee of a crime. Theft, extortion, coercion, fraud, to name just a few.

Regardless of any criminal charges that might be brought against a Federal Reserve employee, just like a molesting babysitter, the first thing that needs to be done is to stop doing business with them. It is not at all good for a case to argue criminal activity while you are still doing business with that criminal. Just stop doing business with them!

Thank you for reconsidering the issue of income taxation. I agree that it can serve as a background and offer historical context, as well as legal context for what needs to be done.

Originally posted by soleprobe
If the Fed is abolished and all the reparations suggested by the OP are implemented by the courts, the whole house of cards with come tumbling down.

"Drop in the bucket"

Well, I would somewhat agree with that anology...It would be the single biggest drop, with the biggest impact when it hits the bucket, but still a drop. Personally, I would be more likely to treat it with the anology of "the first to tip over in a long line of dominoes."

Besides, SCOTUS has a case precedence of defining "income," but I don't have access to the actual case itself at the moment. Income was defined as "the profit or gain derived from the principal." This in no way includes "compensation," no matter how the IRS looks at it...Compensation actually being the "principal" that must be invested in some way in order to get any "profit or gain."

A point that I should make is that, in numerous cases, the SCOTUS has upheld that the 16th Amendment grants no new powers of taxation! The 16th Amendment does not replace or overrule any of the taxation clauses contained within the main body of the Constitution!

Another point I think I should make is that, even though the SCOTUS does have the Power of Constitutional Interpretation, we also must look to see where & how they get that Power. As the Constitution stands, it was originally the representatives of the several States (granted the representative power by the People of the States) who wrote & ratified the Constitution. The States could not grant the Interpretation Power to the US Government had not the People allowed to let their representatives do so...The ultimate origin of ALL Political Power is derived from We the People! The SCOTUS is in no way the "final" or "ultimate" interpretator of the Constitution...The People are! In fact, most (if not all) State Constitutions contain a specific clause to the effect that "all political power originates from the People."

The US Constitution is indeed a "living document," but not in the way that our government officers would have you believe. They consider their own interpretations to be the source of the "living" part of the "document" & how they interpret it, but that's completely false. The Founding Founders knew that if the government was allowed to define its own powers, there would be no reason to have a Constitution in the first place: they'd simply define all the specific & general limitations to Power out of existence. It stands as a living document through the Due Process of Amendments...

...And it also stands as an updated Contract of Employment (between We the People as employers & those Officers as the employees), every single time any one of them "signs their name" to the contract via the swearing/affirmation of the Oath of Office! That contract specifies what their jobs are & specifically forbids them from performing any other task! Any deviation from the Oath of Office under the Constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land!...Any deviation at all is grounds for removal from office & indictment under charges!
Yes, We are the Employers. If you've requested a new Social Security Card after you reached the age of majority, look in the bottom corner on the back side: that serial number there is your Employer Identification Number. Yep, the US Government really is a corporation...with the biggest Co-Owner Board of Directors in the whole world!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Also, and this is very important, it is a voluntary tax, so the willful filing of a valid tax return serves as prima facie evidence to ones liability, giving the IRS reasonable cause to enforce the law as written. Does that make sense?

It is because of this voluntary nature is why the government actually offers "tax breaks" or other forms of "relief" from time to time: they make these offers only to those who fill out the tax forms! In short, they trick you into "volunteer status" with the use of their "offers!" The IRS also relies on a taxpayer's self-assesment of their taxable income: With very few exceptions (all being cases of commercially-generated income), IRS agents will try to get the individual citizen to sign their names in agreement with whatever assesment the agent tries to use!

Also, whenever you're accepted into a new job, the employer there is under the (deliberately falsified) impression that you have to fill out the W-4 form while they generate your new employee file...The problem there is that the W-4 is your new "contract of voluntary status" with the government that allows the employer to withhold taxes from your paycheck! In short, without that W-4 on your record, the employer has no authority to act as a tax collection agent & they have to keep your paycheck off of the list of "taxable payroll!"
If you do happen to be liable for taxes in the first place, you would still be required to file & pay, even without the W-4...And the legal responsibility would be on you, not the employer, to file & pay. But if you're not legally liable otherwise, not having that W-4 also denies them another "hook" into proving your "voluntary status."

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If the people are to effectively keep their own government in check, then in these modern times, it is arguable that the people have as much right to park a Harrier Jet in their backyard, or even, (God forbid), keep a nuclear arsenal in their basement.

In the strictest construction of the 2nd Amendment, that's exactly what it means...However, with each & every Inalienable Right enumerated by the Law (& even those not specifically written yet: see the 9th Amendment), there is also an equal responsibility to avoid violating the equal Rights of others in the exercise of yours. Again, SCOTUS ruling specifies that "the lawful exercise of a Right can never be converted into a crime." The "lawful exercise" part means that you are taking your Responsibility of Rights seriously too...In the example of keeping a nuclear explosive device, you'd have to be certain that your neighbors aren't going to get radiation poisoning or that the device won't go off by accident.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As to the powers of taxation that Congress has, it should be noted that according to the Constitution, Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation. That power, however, is limited by a few rules.

Yes, and Congress was given the initial choice of going with "apportioned" or "non-apportioned." They chose apportioned, meaning that the States are taxed according to citizen head-count residing within the State. And since I've already mentioned that SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment grants no new powers of taxation, since then it's been long-argued by Constitutional Scholars that the 16th Amendment itself is the most powerless & "do nothing" Amendment ever cooked up.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As long as you and others are willing slaves to the tax code, you are not going to accomplish a thing in abolishing the Fed. Both are so tightly interwoven, that your willful and voluntary funding of it all only empowers your masters.

In a nutshell, this is correct...Not-liable (but voluntary) taxpayers are literally funding the government to pay the costs of their own slavery! From a number of different, reliable sources, the last I've heard (about 2 months ago) is that about half of American citizens are not paying taxes anymore...Is it any wonder that the government's trying to tax the remaining half more heavily than ever?

Yes, the Fed should be sued...Right down to their last penny. It's modus operendi is in direct violation of the Constitution & even more so when Nixon severed the link between Federal Reserve Notes from gold/silver backing. Even so, since no State shall "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts (Article1, Section 10, Clause 1)," then forcing the entire nation into the Fed's monopoly of FRN's is just another violation of the Constitution to add to the list. Oh, that doesn't prohibit the US Government from using FRN's amongst themselves or even with foreign nations, but they have no authority to force the States or the People into using FRN's for any reason or purpose.