Time: Mon Jul 07 04:02:49 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA09737; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 03:58:12 -0700 (MST) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA27154; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 03:58:06 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 03:58:02 -0700 To: fwolist@sportsmen.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Amendment 16 Post Mortem" We will add your opinion here to the host of discrepant and irreconcilable opinions already penned by numerous other non-judges, with or without black robes. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com p.s. I hope you read further in Chapter 13; the good stuff is not on page one. At 12:59 AM 7/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >================[ Distributed Message ]================ > ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order) > Type: Not Moderated > Distributed on: 07-JUL-97, 00:59:10 >Original Written by: IN:csharp@mindspring.com. >======================================================= > > >fwolist@sportsmen.net said on 7/5/97 9:43 PM: > >>By distilling >>the cores of these two competing groups, we are thereby justified >>in deciding that a ratified 16th Amendment produced one or both >>of the following two effects: >> >> >> 1. Inside the 50 States, it removed the apportionment >> restriction from taxes laid on income, but it left this >> restriction in place for all other direct taxes. >> >> 2. It overturned the principle advanced in the Pollock >> case which held that a tax on income is, in legal >> effect, a tax on the source of that income. > >#2 above is close, but leaves out one important point... > >What it DID do, is PREVENT the income tax from being taken >out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently >belonged. Essentially, it eliminated the RULE USED in the Pollack >case. > >Now, to understand this properly, you must first understand that >the income tax in question is NOT the income tax as it has always >been commonly understood in England, which it was ALWAYS understood >to be a DIRECT tax, but instead, it was talking about the NARROWLY >defined income tax that was under consideration in the Pollack case. > >The RULE that was used in the Pollack case was IGNORING the fact >that Congress had taxed the excercise of privelege, and simply >used the income generated thereby as a GAUGE to determine the tax. > >So, your number two above should read: > >> 2. It overturned the principle advanced in the Pollock >> case which held that a tax on income is, in legal >> effect, a tax on the source of that income, regardless >> of the stated subject of the tax being the exercise >> of privelege. > > > > > >In the pursuit of Liberty and Truth, > >Charles > > > >======================================================================== >To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net >with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to >remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems? > email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net >For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net > >======================================================================== >via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail