Law & Ethics - January 2007

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

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

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

2007-01-23 03:20:29 · 4 answers · asked by azed1168 1

Hi. I would like to know what are the legal remedies in the U.S. to guarantee/protect your rights. In Spain for example they have the "amparo constitucional" that is a judicial special remedy presented before the Constitutional Court (the same exists in Germany, Italy, and in some Latinamerican countries).
I have read that in the U.S. there are injunctions in order to protect ones rights, but they are not exclusively against government acts.

My question ist, if a governmental act violates my rights, how do I restitute them? For example: if the government issues a law that hurts my religious freedom, or a court does not respect my right to a due process? what can I do in these cases?

Thank you very much!

2007-01-23 03:17:08 · 4 answers · asked by Dussygirl 3

they had gangs and alcohol was prohibited and sold on the black market. I believe in the future if you want to buy drugs even prescription drugs they will all be sold over the counter.
From crank to mary jane to heart medication. It would eliminate the drug lords and the drug underworld of crime.
we have lost the war on drugs. Is there anyone who wants and takes drugs not getting them? So we are supporting these men the rest of their life because they broke the law on drugs.
Let people have drugs until they all kill their self.
What do you think?

2007-01-23 03:13:24 · 1 answers · asked by Ruth 6

Can a mississippi court judgement against an individual be executed to attach out of state joint assets?

2007-01-23 03:10:41 · 1 answers · asked by hitpros2000 1

A person who might be in poverty or greediness, pickpocket some one's belongings or treasury was caught must he be punished?

2007-01-23 03:05:40 · 2 answers · asked by ELGINKOH 2

No one should be able to tell an employer how to run his company/ pay his employess, etc. If you don't like it then leave. I know its harsh but this is capitalism, not communism. Unions have communist tendencies. That is undeniable.

2007-01-23 02:53:06 · 7 answers · asked by mtphellas1 2

has anyone got ant good ideas how i become a criminal mastermind, i love to stroke white cats, and a love for pools of pirana fish. my evil lair is dark and cold ...where do i go from here?

2007-01-23 02:52:05 · 3 answers · asked by dave 3

2007-01-23 02:49:14 · 10 answers · asked by Petra S 1

Have we not protected the person he shot and now is a cripple ? Who takes care of him with a roof over his head and food in his gut and were you cncerned about if he had any medical attention last evening or a hot mean?

2007-01-23 02:43:19 · 4 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6

companies?

2007-01-23 02:39:12 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

do you think the united states, being a free nation, should have professional jurys like they do in france? so many people in america dont like to be inconvenienced by jury duty, and some don't care about the cases and don't give honest verdicts.

2007-01-23 02:37:53 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

I plan to move from GA to VA to be closer to my kids and have more time w/ them. I am going to petition the court to have them 1/2 the year and the other 1/2 w/ their mom. I know it will affect my current child support order, but shouldn't it stop it altoghter,since I will now be providing 1/2 of their support?

2007-01-23 02:35:38 · 10 answers · asked by domonique_00 1

Drinking destroys a family a community and a threat if he or she is an official in our government and Adultry speaks for its self>

2007-01-23 02:33:44 · 6 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6

Any family attorneys please help. My co-worker just lost custody of her 3 boys. The judge in my opinion did it because he is a guy. But the mother has always been there for all the practices and school parents night and anything else regarding the kids. But I guess since he makes more money and live in another state the judge felt it's best for kids to pick up and leave their mother. The problem is she trying to appeal the decision but her attorney told her it will take $1000 to get a transcript of the hearing to file the appeal. Is there anything she can do to waive this fee? Thanks for any suggestions.

2007-01-23 02:33:16 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

file the return myself and rightfully so as the father. How do I go back and make the necessary corrections and file her myself. Is there a more efficient and time saving manner in which todo this?

2007-01-23 02:31:18 · 5 answers · asked by Gerald H 1

Many inmates file a variety of appeals while they are incarcerated. A good number rely on jailhouse lawyers for help. Suggest two reasons why jailhouse lawyers write writs for other inmates.

2007-01-23 02:28:31 · 3 answers · asked by whalelovers2000 2

I just had some nut job say that if I disapproved of gay lifestyle because of my own moral convictions, then I was discriminating against them religiously. So in effect, they can believe what they want but I can't. If this is the case then, isn't him telling me that I cannot belief that homosexuality is an immoral behavior Religous discrimination? I can't believe people let them get away with these unsound illogical arguments!

2007-01-23 02:20:23 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

hi all, last year in August i was receiving some parcels almost every week though i didnt make any order. they were 6 all together and included moblie phones,Dvd and an mp3 player. infact i was getting a lil bit mad when i realised it was coming everynow and then so i decided to return one. but when i got to the post office i was told the postage would cost from £20. so i said to myself why should i use my own money so i decided to stop.
since last weekend i have being getting calls from a guy who says he is in charge of the company i purchased the stuffs from and that they are still expecting payments from me.Accorrding to the man i supplied a wrong credit card details n so they couldnt take the money off my bank account. My problem is why should i pay for something i havent got any idea about? its not as if am interested in any of the stuffs. the man is now arguing with me that when i realised i hadnt ordered anything y did i sign for it in the first place?

2007-01-23 02:04:46 · 22 answers · asked by babynash 2

i am 59, having various heart problems and doctors are worried for me. so if something does happen i don't want my wife to get one thing! she's 47, a biggish age gap.

i know she's been cheating on me, i know it! even if she's not (which i doubt) she's never been a very good wife i we just stayed together for the sake of it. she's not a nice person i tell you...

how do i go about doing this? if i don't leave her anyhting there's still way's she can get things....right?

2007-01-23 02:02:09 · 24 answers · asked by George 1

I mean they are not a race and they can't procreate. If they are dicriminated against it is because of an action that they choose to engage in. Kind of like a crack head chooses to use crack. Does that mean that he should have a civil right to smoke crack? I am Black and I can not change that fact (Michael Jackson tried), and I wouldn't if I could, but a Homosexual can choose not to be a Homosexual.

2007-01-23 02:01:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

but anything will do, thanks

2007-01-23 01:41:29 · 2 answers · asked by star ray 3

Not as much about the suit, which is ridiculous. What we were wondering is this. My wife had a fender bender 2 years ago. We just got a notice that the person is suing us for an insane amount of money. Usually it is covered by insurance which we have. However she had a different insurance company than who she has now. Would the suit still be with the older company from the time of the accident, or would we need different representation?

2007-01-23 01:41:21 · 5 answers · asked by artisticallyderanged 4

2007-01-23 01:32:04 · 1 answers · asked by boon431@btinternet.com 1

i think my sister's lawyer is a fake. He's not even a lawyer.

2007-01-23 01:31:52 · 5 answers · asked by azed1168 1

the case of R P here in Canada who admitted to the murders.!

2007-01-23 01:24:54 · 3 answers · asked by enurjee 1

I have no idea what he does to me and I don't wake up while he is doing it and I know he has done things to me that I would not let him do if I was awake! I don't want to sleep in the same bed as him anymore, I feel like he has crossed the line. He began this 9 months ago, I've ask him to stop. Now I'm mad and I don't know what to do about it or who to talk to about it. He dosen't think he is doing anything wrong.

2007-01-23 01:07:40 · 26 answers · asked by tammi n 1

or which is the best place to check with about this issue?

2007-01-23 01:06:40 · 2 answers · asked by penguinstudio 1