Gold/Dollar/Taxes

Discussion in 'Economy' started by indago, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,054
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    Journalist Mike Zigler wrote for Liberty Watch Magazine November 2007:
    On a 106-degree May afternoon in 2003, government agents raided several establishments belonging to Southern Nevada businessman Robert “Bobby” Kahre. With guns drawn, officials held more than 20 handcuffed workers in the sun without water as agents collected records and other materials. Kahre hadn’t committed a crime. He had upset the Internal Revenue Service by paying his workers based on the face value of gold and silver coins, versus the market value in the Federal Reserve system (the value of the coins in U.S. paper dollars). Even though the coins were in circulation, displayed a face value, and were regulated by Congress, the IRS’s confusing and endless tax code did not determine how to handle these gold and silver coins if used for payroll. The tax code only references dollars. It does not distinguish between coined money and paper money.

    Gold/Dollar/Taxes
     
  2. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,054
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    In March 2007, the primary defendant, Bob Kahre, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and IRS agents who had conducted what he alleges to be an unlawful search and seizure raid.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Portland — Independent Media Center

    IRS Suffers Defeat: Kahre tax trial: Wages Paid in Gold and Silver Coin

    NEW 10/1/2007 6:49:35 AM

    Main Stream Media Blackout: 161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions

    IRS Suffers Staggering Defeat in Kahre tax trial. Tax Questions Raised Regarding Gold and Silver Coins Used to Pay Wages

    Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

    The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

    On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.

    The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

    In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.

    According to defense attorney Joel Hansen, who represented co-defendant Alex Loglia, the primary "willfulness" defense was that the defendants believed they had no legal obligation to withhold, pay income taxes or report anything to the government because, in part, the nominal (i.e., face value) of the gold and silver coins is so small as to fall beneath the reporting thresholds set by the Internal Revenue Code.

    The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on the fruits of their labor.

    The Government argued that the payments in solid gold and silver U.S. coins must be considered at their bullion (i.e., intrinsic full-market) value when considering the worth of the wages for purposes of the internal revenue code.

    Attorney Hansen cited two Supreme Court cases bolstering Defendant's monetary argument at the heart of the defendants "willfulness" defense.

    The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins' market value, arising as valuable personal "property," is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.

    In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable "income" (if any) can only be the face value indicated upon the coin money paid -- i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50 for a circulating gold U.S. coin. Not surprisingly, the IRS has never issued any public guidance regarding this significant issue.

    The first case, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910), establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of the sovereign:

    "These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

    The second case, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:

    "A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."

    Defense attorney Hansen confirmed that members of the jury were able to actually hold and inspect the gold and silver U.S. coins paid to the workers.

    After almost four months of testimony and three and a half days of deliberation, the jury did not convict any of the defendants of any of the 161 crimes alleged. Although some defendants were acquitted of multiple counts, and several were acquitted completely, others may have to stand for a retrial if the Government brings charges a second time.

    The Review Journal reported the jury foreman claimed DOJ prosecutors admitted they were "shocked" by the outcome.

    In March 2007, the primary defendant, Bob Kahre, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and IRS agents who had conducted what he alleges to be an unlawful search and seizure raid. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn a previous District Court ruling holding that the federal prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for the unlawful raid.

    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    and this has to do what with the overall forum? I may easily be missing something here, please educate me.
     
  4. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,054
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    Kathianne wrote:
    When the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the subversion of our monetary system in 1883, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote a scathing rebuke of his bretheren on the bench:

    "If there be anything in the history of the Constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes both by the general government and by the States; and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties. ...legislative declaration cannot make the promise of a thing the equivalent of the thing itself. ...For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist."
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    Section 8 Article one does in fact give the Government the right to create money. It further stipulates not JUST coins but "securities".

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    Is there board maintainance at 3 in the morning? Or any other time? It seems late at night I routinely get the waiting to load message for minutes at a time.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    As for taxation...

    Pretty damn clear to me.
     
  8. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,054
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    RetiredGySgt posted:
    Government securities are not paper money.

    Government Securities
     
  9. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,054
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    The foregoing quote of Justice Stephen J. Field was from the United States Supreme Court case of Juilliard v Greenman. The Juilliard School of Performing Arts in New York was named after Augustus D. Juilliard, a wealthy textile merchant.

    Following is an excerpt from a research article that I wrote:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The use of paper for a medium of exchange is not new; and when it has been used, it was a subject of abuse, as were those who accepted it in payment for a debt owed. The subject was brought before the Constitutional Convention of 1787. So much has been written concerning this that any more would be superfluous. The subject was even superfluous in February, 1787, when George Washington wrote to Senator Stone of the Maryland Legislature, writing of an issue of paper money by the Legislature of Maryland:

    "The ground has been so often trod, that a place hardly remains untouched. ...An evil equally great is, the door it immediately opens for speculation, by which the least designing, and perhaps most valuable, part of the community are preyed upon by the more knowing and crafty speculators."

    Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

    "Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

    Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  10. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,054
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    RetiredGySgt Posted:
    It is noted, in our historical records, and also by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Constitution of the United States recognizes two classes of taxation: the direct and the indirect taxes. The Court noted that the indirect taxes, which include the excises, are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." "...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges". Direct taxes are taxes upon the person or his property. During the construction of our government, it is recorded that an attempt was made to grant the power to government to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States, and all attempts failed. The Congress was granted the power to lay direct taxes upon the States with the requirement of apportionment. It is also recorded that the sixteenth amendment created no new taxing powers for the government; that the federal "income tax" is an excise tax, and the "income" is the measurement used for the amount of the tax to be paid.

    Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
     

Share This Page