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