Obama Trial on 26 January 2010

This is an update to the post that was published on 06 September 2009, entitled Sept 8, Obama Eligibility Hearing.

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
  

A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, also were restored to the case.

But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and “possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief.”

A Discussion Regarding Taxation on Private Sector Earnings

Taken from a college student’s paper regarding taxation. Author wishes to remain anonymous. I know that the subject of taxes is confusing and somewhat boring but I urge you to read through this and think about it. All sources are listed at the bottom if you want to see the sources used. Enjoy and thank you to the author of this paper.

—

Even though those whom disagree often site the sixteenth amendment as the law allowing the Congress to tax private sector labor as income, the taxation imposed on the pay of private sector workers is improper because Article 1 Section IX of the United States Constitution prohibits Direct taxation without apportionment, and numerous Supreme Court decisions espouse that trading labor for money is a natural right.

Taxes are a necessary evil. In order for Governments to function, they require a revenue stream – the debts of the government need to be paid, the members of the armed forces need to be paid, and the normal day to day operations of the Government need to be paid. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to generate a revenue stream through the laying and collecting of taxes; this power is given in Article 1 Sec 8 Cl. 2, which states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” 

Then, in Article 1 Sec 9 Cl 4; “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” And in Clause 5 “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” The Founding Fathers, understanding the need of the Federal Government to have a positive inflow of

Ladies of America

For most Americans, we are familiar with the Statue of Liberty. Lady Liberty stands on Liberty Island in New York and has for years welcomed people to The Land of the Free, The United States of America. From her left foot she has broken the shackles that held her captive – a representation of how Americans were to be free of oppression and tyranny. As an indirect symbol of America and her birth and therefore her Republic government where all people were to be represented, I cannot help but wonder what poor Miss Liberty thinks of what America has become. Has someone snuck up behind her and reshackled her feet or have we let our vampirous politicians clamp down on her neck and drain her of her liberty blood. I am afraid that like our Founding Fathers, Lady Liberty would be sad to see what we have become.

America does have another lady in our lives, though. We don’t hear much about her but she is probably just as important. In our Republic we are great because we have the law on our side. Our government was designed to give the power to the people and have everyone represented. Yes, even better then [mob rule] Democracy as everyone purports (and America is not a Democracy). Representing this idea is Lady Justice.

Lady Justice is normally depicted with a sword in one hand, a scale in the other, and blindfolded. The scale is representative of Justice weighing both sides equally under law while the blindfold is to represent the law being carried out objectively and without favoritism or impartialism. (The sword I would presume would represent the ability to guard the law while justice is being weighed? Please comment if you know what the sword symbolizes).

I think it is amazing at how symbolic this single graphical depiction of justice is. It judges without fear or favor because it cannot tell who it is judging. Evidence is quite simply placed into the scale and she weighs them and decides what the outcome is in accordance with the law is. In essence, it is the scale that decides, not her.

Fast forward to 2009 and we now have President Obama saying that he wants a new Justice that holds the following qualities.

Obama said he valued the ‘quality of empathy’ and was hopeful of finding a new justice who would reflect on people’s ‘hopes and struggles’ in the process of arriving at legal decisions. (link)

I am sure that this does not alarm many people out there, but it does me. Essentially what this means is that when you step into a court room, you are stepping into room where they judge and rule upon how well you can emotionally move them, not how your situation applies to the laws on the book. In simple terms, you will not be convicted (or your defendant will not be found guilty) based on laws but rather flippiant emotions.

It is noteworthy to mention that the outside of the Supreme Court it reads, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” not “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER EMOTION AND EMPATHY.”

Maybe Lady Justice should put down her scale and just sit there and see who moves her emotionally instead of weighing the law.

Without law, we have nothing folks.

What Income Taxes Really Are

There IS an Income Tax . . .

HOWEVER

“Everything” you earn
IS NOT
“Taxable Income”

Did YOU earn your money by:

WORKING FOR…

DOING BUSINESS WITH…

INVESTING IN…

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ?

If not, then those earnings
ARE NOT “taxable income”

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

That’s not very helpful, what exactly IS “income” since THAT is what you are taxing…

US Supreme Court, US v. Ballard, 535 f2d 400, 404 (1976) “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code”

What does the Dictionary say “income” is?

in·come: The monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, such as rents or investments.

OK, “income” is all that I earn from my work and investments…just what I thought…

US Supreme Court, Southern Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918): “We must reject the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income…”

WHAT !?…….”income” is NOT “all” money that I receive !? What does the Constitution say about a DIRECT TAX upon my earnings?

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

In response to the above Constitutional reference, your accountant or the IRS will probably refer to the 16th Amendment, commonly known as the “Income tax”. To which the Supreme Court would reply…

US Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916): The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…

Additionally… Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress Report No. 80-19A,“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”:

Page CRS-5 (1979): “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White [the Brushaber ruling], first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.”F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department Legislative draftsman. March, 27 1943 Page 2580.

The income tax is, therefore, is not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

The “PRIVILEGE” you must participate in to earn “taxable income” is working for, doing business with, or investing in businesses majority-owned by the Federal Government or “Federal Instrumentalities”. If you make your money having nothing to do with the Federal Government, then your earnings are not “taxable income”.

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

(original)