0 votes

Wesley Snipes Appeal Denied

Wesley Snipes Appeal Denied
Compiled by RACHEL LEE HARRIS
Published: July 18, 2010

"The actor Wesley Snipes has lost his appeal of a prison sentence he received in 2008 for three misdemeanor tax charges, Reuters reported. In February 2008 a court in Ocala, Fla., sentenced him to three years in jail for willfully failing to file tax returns for 1999 to 2004."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/arts/19arts-SNIPESSAPPEA_B...

This happened a few weeks ago.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

good advertising....if you

good advertising....if you want o avoid paying taxes, you have to be appointed to a high office.....

He should have consulted with Dave Champion.

.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

You can't win this argument (I know from personal experience)

see:
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ - HUGE LIST!!!
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Your are right on most of their statements "But"

I have emailed them many times with the questions below an they do not respond back....

The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” - in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.

The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the 16th Amendment was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.

The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional.

The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The ”previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.

A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

By realizing that Mr. Frank Brushaber was a fiduciary for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, it becomes obvious that the revenue being derived by the federal government from the income tax must come from foreign commerce.

After the Brushaber and Stanton Supreme Court decisions were rendered, the Treasury Department issued its own decision, Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313). TD 2313 was issued to “collectors of internal revenue” and it stated that the Internal Revenue Form 1040 is to be used only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien who has received interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien. This Treasury Decision, which was based upon the Supreme Court decisions, confirms the foreign commerce nature of the income tax.

The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

If whatever you do generates a 1099...

then you MUST generate a 1040 on April 15th to the enabler of the federal reserve,
(IRS).

We must all realize that we are not 14th Amendment citizens. We The People are "Original Class Citizens". The sooner we realize this the sooner we are free!

If He Was Smart...

he would slip out of the the country on a sailboat now and find somewhere that has no extradition with the US and appeal for asylum.He shouldn't give them one second of his life...

The best choice is....

Paraguay. Non-extradition Country. George W. Bush knows this well.

Yup and the largest

fresh water aquifer? Apparently he's planning for something.

+...Pray for Your Enemies and Moral Courage for Righteous Leaders, so that Justice Will Be Delivered to the Innocent...+

Wesley probably wished he had...

run into

Bannatukku.com

Talk about some powerful stuff....

:D

We Need Justice

The Feds wanted to make an example of Wesley. Good thing paying income tax is voluntary.......NOT! I can't believe some IRS people insist paying taxes is voluntary.

"If you want to change government, you have to become government" Ron Paul

For Freedom!

Screw these stuck up b*stards.....

Throw out the whole court case and demand a trial by Jury. That's the only law these ingrates understand.

http://www.fija.org

There is NO tax code in the US constitution and the 17th amendment was never ratified.....Fight!!

Double standards are O.K.

Rep. Charlie Rangel isn't sitting in jail and should be. Snipes tried the ol' "you don't have to pay taxes" mantra and look where that got him. I agree that there is no "constitutional" reason to pay income taxes but, the gestapo don't care. They will toss you in the pokey just for looking at their library of so called tax laws...The government has become a "big dog eat little dog" body running rampant on our constitution and the rule of law in our republic....

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

I guess they are sending

a message to the population.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

So, like Sherry Peel Jackson, Wesley Snipes...

goes to jail for doing "nothing." Reminds me of an old anti-Stalinist movie I saw. The scene between a nurse and a prisoner takes place in the prison hospital.

Nurse: "How long is your sentence?"
Prisoner: "20 years."
Nurse: "What did you do?"
Prisoner: "Nothing."
Nurse: "Not possible. They only give you 10 years for nothing."

This exposes a weakness

If they are this serious about the revenue of money, if we can think of ways to screw with it, we gain concessions.

I think one of the best ways (and legal ways) is to get out of debt. The money they get from interest is probably more than what they get from taxes.

No one can answer this...

16th Amendment changed nothing!

Under Article I section 9 of the Constitution it says "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid" so how does the income tax get around this? Before you jump an say the 16th Amendment look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16TH Amendment.

"The Sixteenth Amendment.....does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects....
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

What this means is the taxing power congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment.

1895 the Supreme Court stated that a income tax on wages was Unconstitutional.

So in 1895 it was Unconstitutional to tax wages an the 16th Amendment did not change anything.....so what makes it Constitutional today?

WRONG. It changed

WRONG. It changed everything. It got rid of the Direct Taxation apportionment. Most of the so-called patriots have been ill informed and wrongly read the meaning of the 16th Amendment. Obviously, you are more than welcome to argue differently and you will be seeing Snipes soon.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Hello

Can you not read???

"The Sixteenth Amendment.....does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects....
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

Hello!!!! anybody home?

Go back an read it again! You did not even answer the question!!!

You are right. It did not

You are right. It did not extend to new subjects. CONgress already had the power to tax. It simply removed the apportionment from income tax to conform with previous taxing power. That means the income tax IS a direct tax, but allowed by the 16th amendment. Its really that simple. Go ahead and argue otherwise and make sure you don't pick up the soap whee you will be going.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

YOU BACK-UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH NOTHING???

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

That knocks in the head what you stated above! Its really that simple! But here is more!

The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” - in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.

The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the 16th Amendment was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.

The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional.

The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The ”previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.

A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

By realizing that Mr. Frank Brushaber was a fiduciary for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, it becomes obvious that the revenue being derived by the federal government from the income tax must come from foreign commerce.

After the Brushaber and Stanton Supreme Court decisions were rendered, the Treasury Department issued its own decision, Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313). TD 2313 was issued to “collectors of internal revenue” and it stated that the Internal Revenue Form 1040 is to be used only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien who has received interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien. This Treasury Decision, which was based upon the Supreme Court decisions, confirms the foreign commerce nature of the income tax.

The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

I know you don't like what I

I know you don't like what I say, but that doesn't mean it isn't true./

Tell me what the point of the 16th amendment was. PLEASE.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I answered your question above but...

I'll point it out for you again....

The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”.

So as you can see the 16th Amendment keep the tax from becoming a direct tax an made sure it remained a indirect tax....

Now let me ask you a question??? What did the Supreme Court mean in the two rulings below?

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

As for your quote "I know you don't like what I say, but that doesn't mean it isn't true./"

No I don't like it.....because the people have been lied to since 1913 on this scam called the income tax.

Your quote "that doesn't mean it isn't true"

Then show me a Supreme Court ruling that back's up what you are saying as true?

I don't want you to give me a

I don't want you to give me a long convoluted answer. Just in plain English tell me what the purpose of the 16th Amendment was. Its that simple.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Just in plain English??? Are you kidding???

16TH AMENDMENT KEEP THE TAX FROM BECOMING A DIRECT TAX AN MADE SURE IT REMAINED A INDIRECT TAX.... Its that simple.

That's what the Supreme Court stated.....but in truth it was written the way it was to deceive the people so they could rob their pay checks! I know you can not answer my question above "BECAUSE" you have no Supreme Court ruling to back up this scam! So you have to play your little game....do you make your living robbing peoples pay checks?

Also income itself is not the tax....income is the word used to measure the amount of tax that is due from the activity or source that is being taxed...

What the hell are you talking

What the hell are you talking about. Did you do ANY research, or just looking for bits and pieces that you can glue together and make your own argument? You did not answer the question. What was the point of the 16th Amendment? Don't cite me 6 pages. Just a small paragraph to support what you say.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I'm not playing your little game anymore!

I've showed you what the Supreme Court said....an you will not answer any of my question about Supreme Court rulings. So I'm not playing your little game anymore.

You are quoting something you

You are quoting something you don't even understand. of course you can't tell me the point of the 16th Amendment, because you have not done your home work. Because of the earlier Supreme Court decision n Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. , that a direct tax on property that was not apportioned, the court held it to be unconstitutional. Thus the reason why they passed 16th amendment, to get RID of the apportionment issue on direct taxation on property. Why don't you go to wiki and read for yourself.

It sums it up here:

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

It IS a direct tax. Like it or not. You have been listening to some of the nuts in the patriot tax movement too long who misinterpret everything and constantly lose in court over frivolous arguments, such as yours.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

That's it??? That's all you got??? WRONG!!!

First off word for word what you quoted above is wiki's opinion an not the Supreme Courts wording. So what you are saying is the 16Th Amendment exempt apportionment & Census results from the Constitution so the income tax could be classified as a direct tax.

So with that said why did the Supreme Court make the ruling in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Art. 1, & 8. "IF THE TAX IS A DIRECT ONE, IT SHALL BE APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OR ENUMERATION." If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an "import", or a "duty". A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not."

Therefore, any statement made today by anyone claiming the 16th Amendment authorized a direct tax are quote

" WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION" Brushaber, supra, at 18.

Also when government and others falsely claim that the 16th Amendment authorized a direct tax, they are directly contradicting the ruling of the United States Supreme Court as so clearly expressed in the Stanton Case. (see quote below)

The Supreme Court then ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment

And here is even more Supreme Court rulings on the 16th Amendment. BRIAN I'VE ASK YOU OVER AN OVER WITH NO ANSWER SO I WILL ASK AGAIN "CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SUPREME COURT RULINGS BELOW?"

A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

So the Fiduciary is the ALL CAPS and the non resident alien

is the live human being?

The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.