Politics & Government - 23 January 2007

Israeli president to be charged with rape By Jeffrey Heller

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Prosecutors intend to charge President Moshe Katsav with rape and other crimes against female employees, the Justice Ministry said on Tuesday, in what would be an unprecedented indictment against an Israeli head of state.

Katsav has denied wrongdoing. The scandal is unlikely to have a direct impact on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- who has himself been hurt politically by a string of investigations into suspected corruption, which he has denied.

2007-01-23 03:43:02 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

2007-01-23 03:42:38 · 19 answers · asked by Feelsgood 2 in Politics

my 19 year old neighbor is pregnant with her fathers baby. He had molested her as a child, and she left at 17. She went to visit for Thanksgiving, and he raped her again.
My state doesn't allow for her to have an abortion. Who believes she should carry her fathers baby? Who doesn't? Why?

2007-01-23 03:42:36 · 12 answers · asked by badbadboy6979 4 in Law & Ethics

I need the key differences between modern ASTs and older tenancy agreements. What were sitting tenants and why was it so hard to get them out? Which Acts had relevant passages and what (broadly) did they say?

2007-01-23 03:42:03 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-01-23 03:40:32 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

2007-01-23 03:40:12 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

if someone has was arrested on 01/22/2006, how do i find out what their charges were and their bond

2007-01-23 03:39:42 · 2 answers · asked by rainbows_fynest 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

From the day that democrats decided to be anti-war in the 2004 elections, the country became divided. Three years later you're either a fascist nazi who supports the Bush regime -or- you're a bleeding heart liberal without a plan who cares only about votes instead of what's best for the country. But what IS best for the country? Are you going to vote for a right wing candidate? A left wing candidate? Or possibly..........a mixed ticket with a moderate democrat and a moderate republican that are somewhere in the middle and able to find common ground?

2007-01-23 03:39:21 · 9 answers · asked by ? 4 in Elections

That way they can clean up their own mess from their own party, balance an out of control budget, end the war in Iraq, and pay down the massive debt? Let the reps raise taxes or do whatever they need to pay down the ever increasing debt...

2007-01-23 03:38:41 · 14 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics

A person would expect that Dems would be able to turn to a candidate who is NOT devisive and hated.

Why is it that they Dems can hardly find anyone other than another Clinton?

2007-01-23 03:38:12 · 7 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics

...candidate that announced a couple days ago. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

He's more of a centrist, has proven abilities to achieve consensus, is diplomatic, and is very smart... Plus he has executive experience (governorships prepare you for the presidency much better than being a senator), AND he's Latino.

Trust me on this - if you want to WIN in 08', you'd better ditch the first two losers I mentioned.


.

2007-01-23 03:37:50 · 19 answers · asked by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 in Elections

aggression and a play to control oil interests in the persian gulf?

2007-01-23 03:37:29 · 7 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Military

Work petition has been approved but additional documents were requested. Does anybody hav same situation?

2007-01-23 03:37:14 · 2 answers · asked by Helen 2 in Immigration

Their only goal is to see Bush lose. If that means the terrorists win, they will vote "YES" for Terrorism.

2007-01-23 03:37:07 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

If the 2008 lineup for the Democrats was John Edwards and Bill Richardson would you vote for them...why or why not.

2007-01-23 03:36:43 · 9 answers · asked by R M 2 in Elections

Bush has made some terrible policy decisions, anyone can see that, which he is obviously to blame for, along with his advisors. Blaming him for global warming, rising oil prices, declining oil prices, and other things like the media does is absurd. Now, when he is gone and the world still turns, can it be fair to say that he will continue to be blamed for things? In 2008 the Democrats will win, because of everything that has gone wrong, I think the 2006 elections were the turning point and future of this country. Now, when the Democrats get in office, will they continue to blame Bush for their policy decisions if they go wrong? Will the media bash them if that happens, or "just blame Bush" because its easy? I voted for Bush but I just want him out ASAP so we can see if the media will blame a Democratic Administration if their policy fails. I think when they do win and something goes wrong, they will spin it and make it look positive. What do you think?

2007-01-23 03:35:55 · 11 answers · asked by Derrick 3 in Politics

Personally I won't be. I don't think that right now this nation needs a female President. I know it would be an AWESOME step for females, BUT I don't think now is the time or SHE is the right one to be the first. Her motives are not sincere or honest. Do you agree, why or why not!? :-)

2007-01-23 03:35:04 · 13 answers · asked by Kamryn's Mommie 2 in Elections

I'm pretty sure he can use his melon as a flotation device.

2007-01-23 03:34:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

Instead of casting the blame where it belongs, right in the lap of the current resident of the White House???

2007-01-23 03:33:24 · 11 answers · asked by Brotherhood 7 in Politics

How does everybody feel about having a woman in the office? What do you think that she will contribute to the American citizens and do you think that the fact that she is a woman prevent her from getting into the office?

2007-01-23 03:33:14 · 5 answers · asked by Rose 3 in Politics

2007-01-23 03:32:11 · 15 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics

2007-01-23 03:31:19 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

given the political correctness of lefties, will people who dont vote for hillary be labelled sexists? will those who dont vote for obama be labelled as racists? after all, both are democrats, and they will probably blame their own kind for not getting votes from their base, and take advantage of their creation to do so.

2007-01-23 03:30:59 · 7 answers · asked by whatever 1 in Politics

2007-01-23 03:30:23 · 14 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Politics

She is an illegal immigrant so she is scared of being deported.

The lawyer we got told us that most misdemeanors and some felonies are excused if we can prove that she is hard-working and pays taxes.

I don't know much about the US because I haven't been here that long. Is the lawyer telling us the right thing?

2007-01-23 03:30:18 · 14 answers · asked by Antis Suck 3 in Immigration

In the "GGW" video, they taped two 17 year old girls showing their stuff on spring break.

Isn't this technically child pornography? Shouldn't he get more than 2 years parole and a 500k fine, which is probably a drop in the bucket for all the money he makes?

Should he go to jail?

2007-01-23 03:29:57 · 4 answers · asked by I STILL hate hippies 2 in Law & Ethics

I have been trying to assist my grandmother in "disenrolling" from Humana's Rx drug coverage plan, as she DOES NOT TAKE any medication and has NEVER used the coverage. I was told today by "Alitza", who could hardly speak English, that it is impossible to disenroll unless it is during the annual "enrollment" period. Does this make any sense? She has paid premiums for months and NEVER used the coverage, and is being told she CANNOT drop the coverage and is RESPONSIBLE for paying the premiums until the next "enrollment" period (Nov. 15th thur Dec 31). Then she can "disenroll" during this "enrollment" period. BEWARE OF THESE PLANS, ESPECIALLY BEWARE OF HUMANA.

2007-01-23 03:27:07 · 2 answers · asked by Lisa 1 in Law & Ethics

Private citizens could greatly reduce the cost of produce if they grow and sell their own vegetables and fruit! What do you think? Americans Had Victory Gardens during World War II. AeroGarden maybe a solution for single families!

2007-01-23 03:26:01 · 11 answers · asked by Sassy 3 in Immigration

American Citizen's, living and working in the 50 states have no liability to pay federal income taxes and no liability to pay state income taxes, since the Constitution of the United States of America clearly does not allow for a DIRECT, UNAPPORTIONED TAX on Citizen's property or on the fruit of their labors. The recent case in Illinois, United States v. Robert Lawrence highlighted the fraudulent 1040, which does not contain a valid OMB number. The govt asked for the case to be dismissed, because Lawrence's atty intended to expose the fraud and the government was smart enough to realize that this would also expose the Constitutional tort existent because the income tax is a direct unapportioned tax..

The 16th Amendment does not change Constitutional taxation, because it is limited to the word “income”, which is not redefined in this amendment. Here the term “income” means that on which an excise tax can be levied. “Income” does not refer to earnings for work. This was confirmed by at least 8 Supreme Court rulings, and has never been overturned. The 16th Amendment does not repeal the Constitution’s principles of taxation.

The 16th Amendment granted Congress no new powers of taxation. This amendment is a statement about excise taxes, and certainly does not allow for a new direct tax on earnings for work.
Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages.

TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., [N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429). The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to:

"Lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

Evens v. Gore, [Ky 1920] 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245,
Kasey v. C.I.R., [C.A. 91972] 457 F2d 369,
Cert. denied 93 S.Ct. 197, 409 U.S. 869

It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the constitutional provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes but instead merely provided for taxation of income without apportionment (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493; Simmons v. U.S., [CA Md 1962] 308 F2d 160).

The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source (capital) from the income (profit) permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, but leaving the source (wages, salary, compensation, fees for service, first time commissions and capital) untouched and free of tax. If these things were to be taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax in income void.

There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally allowable as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not constitutionally free to define "income" in any way it chooses (Simpson v. U.S., [D.C. Iowa 1976] 423 F.Supp. 720, reversed on other grounds, Prescott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [C.A.] 561 F2d 1287). Further, the labels used do not determine the extent of the taxing power (Simmons v. U.S., [C.A. Md. 1962] 308 F2d 160; Richardson v. U.S., [C.A. Mich. 1961] 294 F2d 593, cert. denied 82 S.Ct. 640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed.2d. 549).

To reiterate; the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution has not changed except as to separate the source of "income" from the income itself permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service, and first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber, supra.) despite how some politicians interpret the 16th Amendment.

NOTE:

The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 [1895] which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been to leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. This result, the court held, could NOT have been contemplated by Congress.

Since the general term: "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, (U.S. v. Ballard, [1976] 535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 1889).

Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne, [C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended (Abbot, Procter & Paine v. U.S., [1965] 344 F2d 333, 170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van Vorst, [C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677).

Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must look to that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance and affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed.

The Court has recognized that:

"... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not `income' ..."

Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 189

and determined that:

"... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in, the true function of the words `gains' and `profits' is to limit the meaning of the word `income'"

(So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847);
(U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917);
(247 U.S. 30 [1918])

The Court determined that:

"... the definition of income approved by the Court is:

`The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'"

Eisner, supra.



"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and in such connection gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal"

Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737,
(U.S. Dist. Ct. EDPA, 1937)


In the case of Lucas v. Earl, [1930] 281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that:

"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added]

The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v. Edwards, [1921] 255 U.S. 527 and in 1969, the Court ruled in Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, that:

"Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income .... Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation."

"... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."

Edwards v. Keith, [1916] 231 F. 111


Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court:

"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."

Oliver v. Halstead, [1955]
196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858
and:

"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered in not profit."

Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews,
345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 [1946]


Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to what is or is not income, we find the word "income" does not mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual, but profit or gain FROM the money one takes in, such as interest, stock dividends, profit from an employee's labors, but not from an individual's wages, which are compensation for his labor. This means that the average person in America, who has no large investments or riches upon which he receives interest, dividends, etc., in excess of the amounts listed above (1992) but merely works for wages, has income insufficient in amount to be required to file a tax return.
.

2007-01-23 03:24:32 · 3 answers · asked by jgroup01 2 in Law & Ethics

The rabbid Right has created so many domestic atrocities with the "war" on drugs and the war on people who are not religious fanatic(all in the name of money),isnt it nice that we have imported right-wing success to Iraq,complete with atrocities?

Now that more Americans have died in Iraq than on 9-11,how can we create more swell conservative atrocities?

Aint Bush and his robotic fan club a bunch of geniouses?

2007-01-23 03:22:57 · 13 answers · asked by Cut The Crap 2 in Politics