On the last thread, you implied that I'm trying to duck the issue. Not so, but I do have things that need to be done besides posting here. It takes time to go over the references you supplied. If I'm going to give you the curtesy of reading them, it's fair that you wait until I'm able to respond.

I haven't responded yet, because I haven't read them yet.

BTW, I didn't post that last "article". I'm not objecting to it, but cut n paste is not what I had in mind to use as argument. I began to read Patton v. Grady, but haven't finished yet.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 24, 2001

Answers

Okay, in Patton v. Brady, year(1900) the issue is a sales tax.

Patton was told by Brady to pay an additional amount above the sales tax that he already paid. He, at first said no, and claimed her action was unconstitutional. She threatened to seize his recently bought tobacco and sell it if he did not give her more money.

He gave her the money, saying under protest that he would sue, and he did.

The judge ruled that Bradys' taxing action was constitutional because the feds do notimpose a tax and then not tax. -----------------------------------------------------

Grady cited a statute(according to the judge) and threatened to take his property. Patton waived his 5th amendment rights by giving her the money before being ordered by a court to do so.

If Patton had not given her the money, and she ordered his property seized, it would have been in violation of his right to due process, but since he gave her the money, it wasn't.(And, he did give her the money) (This is "key" in the judges decision)

Even if she actually "showed him the law", essentially, she used bluff and intimidation to coerce Patton to give her the money.

But this is being used by you, Flint (or whoever actually wrote it) to imply that the power to tax nullifies your right to due process.

The judge does not say federal actions supercede citizens rights, but the author of this disinfo piece suggest it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 24, 2001.

KoFE:

[The judge does not say federal actions supercede citizens rights, but the author of this disinfo piece suggest it.]

I don't quite know what you're referring to. Those cases were cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Brushaber decision. Presumably, those justices are trying to show that the 5th amendment does not, never has, and was never intended to nullify the power of taxation explicitly granted by the Constitution (and then modified by the 16th amendment).

The strange notion that the due process clause renders taxation illegal in any way has never been upheld by any court, and never will be. Yet when the court calls such a claim "preposterous", rather than figure this out, you try to find some way to misinterpret yet another decision. The law neither says nor means what you prefer.

But I guess the supreme court coming right out and telling you you're wrong in so many words isn't good enough for you. Why not?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 24, 2001.

But Flint, that's exactly what your cut and paste job was doing.

Have you actually read that Patton v. Grady? Read it and come back and then tell me I read it wrong. This may be a S C ruling. It doesn't matter, yes or no. I happen to agree that the ruling is correct. Pattons due process wasn't technically violated because he gave the money. It wasn't taken by force.

I'm looking at each case that you posted on it's own merit.

You should have no problem stating what you believe Patton v. Grady says, and then move on.

BTW, I'll say it again, the first one on that list, which I referred to already- The first name I can't remember- ? v. White made no mention of any relevant issues. If you see something there, you ought to say so.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 24, 2001.

KoFE:

Those citations were provided by the supreme court. I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be one. When the supreme court says the 5th amendment doesn't absolve you from any taxes, then I'm not going to claim they're wrong. You have come up with NO citations to the contrary. The best you've been able to do is to claim *other* cases don't directly cover your point. But the Brushaber decision came right out and STATED the legal policy, in unambiguous language. Do you want the court to hear and reject essentially the same worthless claim over and over? Once an issue is unambiguously resolved, the supreme court sees no need to repeat themselves -- words spoken twice add no meaning.

And I cited the case where your claim was clearly dismissed as worthless. WHY don't you just read the plain language I quoted? It's right there for everyone to see. You're like a little kid whose parents said NO!!!, so you're going to do it anyway on the grounds that the neighbor (who wasn't involved) did NOT say no.

If you feel the supreme court and everyone else except you is wrong, say so. You will NOT find a case anyone else reads as contradicting them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 24, 2001.

BTW, I'm not saying that the due process clause nullifies the power to tax. Of course it doesn't.

I'm saying that you are voluntarily waiving your right to due process when you submit a 1040, because you can be penalized for information that you provide as an affidavit.

But, if you don't "volunteer", you can be charged with "willful failure to file". So, essentially, when the deed is done by force, you have only one choice, which means it's mandatory, not voluntary, and if it's mandatory that you give up your property without being convicted of a crime first, then it is in violation of due process.

I don't have a problem with taxes. Taxes are totally neccesary, and constitutional.

I'm saying that the IRS is applying the "income tax" incorrectly.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 24, 2001.

You're going to be surprised when Brusaber is explained. But again, you refuse to address the fact that those cases you cited are not relevant to what you intended. If they are relevant, cite the reason why. You said "Make your case!" Well, that's what this is. The SC rulings are what I'm relying on, contrary to what you imply.

You are really the one dodging the issue with accusations that I refuse to understand.

You are the one who brought up Patton v. Grady. Now, it's your turn to explain it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 24, 2001.

KoFE:

Until you learn to read, I guess I'll have to keep cutting and pasting from my own replies...

[But again, you refuse to address the fact that those cases you cited are not relevant to what you intended.]

And from my previous reply, "Those citations were provided by the supreme court." From my prior reply, "Those cases were cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Brushaber decision." Now, how do I get through to you that these are NOT MY CITATIONS?

As for your next wild claims:

Claim: Withholding of income tax from wages, and the assessment and collection of income taxes without any court order, is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.

Citations:

"It is well-settled that withholding income tax from wages does not violate the constitution. See Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276 (7th Cir. 1984); Robinson v. A & M Electric, Inc., 713 F.2d 608 (10th Cir. 1983); Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. den. 454 U.S. 1145 (1982)."

The above quote is from Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 24, 2001.

And there you go again, cited cases(without text, or out of context), as if it's a done deal.

Are you going to explain Patton v Grady and the first one, or are you going to piling on titles until there are too many to answer?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 25, 2001.

And, I'm trying to get through to you that these citations are being misconstrued.

You are stating that I claim that withholding tax from wages is a violation of the 5th.

That's completely untrue. I never said that. It's perfectly constitutional- and does not contradict what I stated above.

Once again; you are tring to paint before the house is built.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 25, 2001.