What part of the word “Illegal” is it that these people do not understand?? We owe them nothing!! Maybe they would like it better if we put them on a ship and shipped them all to an island somewhere in the Pacific.
Immigration activists on Friday rejected the idea of granting legal status short of citizenship to illegal immigrants in emerging legislation. The activists said that only citizenship would be acceptable for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and that the compromise idea floated by some House Republicans, offering legalization but not citizenship, won’t work.
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said allowing illegal immigrants to legalize their status without the prospect of citizenship would “create an institutionalized group of second-class non-citizens.”
Posts Tagged With: illegal
What part of the word “Illegal” is it that these people do not understand?? We owe them nothing!! Maybe they would like it better if we put them on a ship and shipped them all to an island somewhere in the Pacific.
And so, the surface-to-air war between ground dwellers and unmanned aerial drones has begun. This incident occurred, as an animal rights group was hoping to snoop on a hunting club. The result was a well-placed shot, bringing down the drone they call ‘Angel’. The Angel, has fallen to earth with a gaping hole, put there by a lead gift from the ground. This isn’t the first time the Pennsylvanian, Berks County Hunting Club, has been under surveillance from the group, SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK).
SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) are in the midst of a campaign against the Wing Pointe commercial hunting grounds in Hamburg, Berks County and its live pigeon shoots in which the birds are shot down. SHARK began to use an “Octocopter,” a remote controlled flying machine with a high tech video camera, to secretly record the pigeon shoots as they happen.
“The pigeon shooters are basically going into hiding,” said Steve Hindi, president of SHARK. “So they’re using a ring that’s up a hill and completely surrounded by trees. So the only way you can get to it is through the air.”
Here is SHARK’s account of how the Angel met its doom:
SHARK claimed “a single sharp rifle crack rang out,” in a press release sent out on Monday. The group says the camera’s video feed was terminated and the drone went out of control before it was manually brought down. The gunshot caused around $4,000 in damage to the camera, according to SHARK.
While SHARK claims that pigeon shoots are illegal, so is taping individuals without his or her consent …not to mention, it’s quite rude.
An antiques dealer accused of selling books signed with fake signatures of famous figures on eBay has been found guilty of some of the charges he faced.
Allan Formhals, 66, of Milford on Sea in Hampshire, was found guilty of eight counts of fraud and two of possessing articles for the use in fraud.
He was cleared of two counts of fraud and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on three further counts.
The charges related to signatures from the likes of Churchill and Picasso.
The three charges the jury failed to reach a decision on at Southampton Crown Court will lie on file, the judge said.
Mr Formhals was too ill to appear at court on Thursday.
A previous hearing in Southampton heard Formhals had found books at car boot sales and a recycling centre and added the fake signatures.
The court was told he lied to collectors, from as far afield as Texas in the US, about the provenance of the items.
Collector Kim Taylor-Smith bought 68 signed books and documents bearing Winston Churchill’s fake signature for about £10,000, prosecutor Simon Edwards said.
Formhals told him the books came from the estate of the late Neville Duke, a famous World War II fighter pilot who lived in Milford on Sea.
However, in November 2010, Mr Taylor-Smith had some of his items examined by an expert in Churchill books and was told they were forgeries.
“A number of items were left with him overnight. He called Mr Taylor-Smith the next day with the ghastly news that each and every Churchill signature was a fake,” Mr Edwards said.
Police also found the forged signatures of JRR Tolkien, Oliver Cromwell, Elizabeth I and Marie Antoinette at Formhal’s home, the court was told.
Mr Edwards said that when interviewed Formhals told officers he got the books from Wimborne and Matchams car boot sales in Dorset, and denied being responsible for the signatures.
“He said he was not an expert on books and advertised them as signed, as opposed to signed by,” he said.
“He believed them to be genuine but he did not advertise them for sale as such or guarantee them as such.”
Mr Formhals denied all charges against him, which related activity between 2009 and 2011.
The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.
But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.
The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.
Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.
Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.
He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.
In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”
WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.
Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.
Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.
“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.
“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”
Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”
Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.
Simply, the labor of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, so it is not “profit.” To determine otherwise would be to subject corporations such as Wal-Mart to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.
The court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”
In 1969, the court ruled: “Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”
And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
“The elements of this case involve respondent/IRS administrative functions being implemented under color of law,” Maehr wrote. “In 2003, petitioner began requesting answers to constitutional questions regarding respondent’s positions in application of its taxation process, but which, since 2003, have been completely ignored and labeled as ‘frivolous’ and he was told that if he wanted any answers, it would have to be found ‘in the courts.’
“The essential, foundational, original intent of Congress regarding ‘income’ taxation and tax authority has been slowly perverted over the decades with actions under color of law,” Maehr continued. “The original intent was known long ago, and supported by this honorable court, but which have been twisted to mean something completely different today. Despite the quoted cases by respondent in response to petition, claiming arguments were only ‘frivolous,’ none of these cited court cases have ever had evidence in fact entered into the record, or presented as evidence to refute petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful challenges to ‘prove’ them ‘frivolous’ outside hearsay and presumption.”
Among the specific questions raised: Is income tax a direct or indirect tax? What defined “income” when the income tax was adopted? What is the constitutional status of the IRS, and when do the IRS administrative procedures violate due process?
“The logical question to ask is, if petitioner is violating any laws … why is he NOT charged with criminal actions? Why is respondent taking the circuitous route using ‘administrative’ ploys, summons, and alleged ‘deficiency’ notices? The answer is because it has deceived the courts, and knows it has accomplices in committing this easy fraud using them, and it knows it cannot bring criminal charges against petition due to the record created by petition proving no such ‘failure’ would stand up in court, but would expose the ‘income’ taxation scam.”
The Supreme Court said the government’s response is due Oct. 11.
Maehr told WND that the IRS bases its existence on the “premise that the 16th Amendment allows direct unapportioned taxes on people, which it does not.”
The fight is over the fact that when one individual exchanges a $10 bill for two $5 bills from another person, there is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either side of that agreement also does not create “profit,” he said.
It’s actually not the first time the challenge has been in court. WND reported in 2007 when the Internal Revenue Service lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax.
At the time, lawyer Tom Cryer told WND after a jury acquitted him of two criminal tax counts that the IRS was a “fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever.”
Cryer, who has since died, told WND that the simple truth is income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but a rather category such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.
He said at the time if ever such an argument were to be presented widely, there could be huge changes required in the way the federal government operates.
“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.
At the time, spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”
A judge ruled that 10 rare gold coins worth $80 million belonged to the U.S. government, not a family that had sued the U.S. Treasury, saying it had illegally seized them.
The 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagle coin was originally valued at $20, but sold for as much as $7.5 million at a Sotheby’s auction in 2002, according to Courthouse News.
After President Theodore Roosevelt had the U.S. abandon the gold standard, most of the 445,500 double eagles that the Philadelphia Mint had struck were melted into gold bars.
However, a Philadelphia Mint cashier had managed to give or sell some of them to a local coin dealer, Israel Switt.
In 2003, Switt’s family, Joan Langbord, and her two grandsons, drilled opened a safety deposit box that had belonged to him and found the 10 coins.
When the Langbords gave the coins to the Philadelphia Mint for authentification, the government seized them without compensating the family.
The Langbords sued, saying the coins belonged to them.
In 2011, a jury decided that the coins belonged to the government, but the family appealed.
Last week, Judge Legrome Davis of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed that decision, saying “the coins in question were not lawfully removed from the United States Mint.”
Barry Berke, an attorney for the Langbords, told ABCNews.com, “This is a case that raises many novel legal questions, including the limits on the government’s power to confiscate property. The Langbord family will be filing an appeal and looks forward to addressing these important issues before the 3rd Circuit.”
The family said in its suit that in another seizure of the 1933 double eagle, the government split the proceeds with the owner after the coin sold for $7.59 million in 2002, according to Coinbooks.org.
(Reuters) – A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that police can enforce a controversial Arizona “show-your-papers” provision on illegal immigration that has already been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, but blocked a measure making it a crime to transport or harbor undocumented immigrants.
The provision that was upheld, part of a broader law to combat illegal immigration in the Mexico border state that is home to an estimated 360,000 undocumented immigrants, requires police to check the status of people they stop and suspect are in the country illegally.
In allowing that measure to proceed, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that “plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on their facial challenges (to the measure) as a result of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the related case.”
But in a split ruling, Bolton also issued a preliminary injunction blocking a part of the state law that made it a crime to transport, shield or harbor an illegal immigrant within Arizona’s borders.
Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer, a major White House foe in the battle over illegal immigration, signed the state crackdown on illegal immigrants into law in April 2010, complaining that the federal government failed to secure the state’s border with Mexico.
The Obama administration challenged that law in court, saying the Constitution gives the federal government sole authority over immigration policy.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s?
Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.”
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.”No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea.He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies.We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this.I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled.Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood … Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”
——Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.