Investigators say Fed threatened bank CEO

[barfo]

That's a slippery slope. We either have a nation built on the constitution or we just make stuff up as we go along. It is the very basis of our legal framework and without it we are a rudderless ship. Either amendments are passed legally or they are not amendments period.

A judge can rule however they want but to avoid activist judges of either stripe we must look to the constitution for guidance. If the 16th amendment was not passed (it's hard for me to say but it seems suspect at best) then it should not be enforced. If it's so wonderful and universally agreed upon we might as well do the formality of re-ratifying it to be sure that it passed. It's the only amendment I know of where there is some question as to it's legality. Let's make it right or be done with it.

It's kind of silly anyways as our income tax laws seem to really only apply to lower tier rich and the middle class. Poor people and the very rich pay virtually nothing.

What if there was some possible evidence that the 1st amendment was passed improperly? Or the 2nd? Should we then stop enforcing those? What if it turns out that we stole all this land from the Native Americans? Should we give it back?

barfo

 

[Shapecity]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House lawmakers on Thursday accused the federal government of orchestrating a "shotgun wedding" between Bank of America Corp. and Merrill Lynch that cost taxpayers $20 billion, as a top bank executive said publicly for the first time that he was pressured into going through with the deal.

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis testified that the federal government threatened to remove board members at his bank if it reneged on a promise to acquire Merrill Lynch, despite Merrill Lynch's crumbling financial state.

"What gave me concern is that they gave that threat to a bank in good standing," Lewis told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The panel is investigating claims that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pressured Lewis and urged him to keep quiet about Merrill Lynch's financial problems. Not divulging that information would have violated Lewis' fiduciary duty to the bank's shareholders.

Lewis said he did nothing wrong. In the end, the decision to go ahead with the acquisition -- with the promise of government support -- was in everyone's best interest, he testified.

"This course made sense for Bank of America and its shareholders, and made sense for the stability of the markets," he said. "We viewed those two interests as consistent."

Lawmakers on the committee said they remain troubled by internal e-mails and other documents provided to them by the Fed after they issued a subpoena.

One e-mail, by an employee at the Richmond Federal Reserve, said Bernanke had made it clear that if Bank of America backed out and needed financial assistance, "management is gone."

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the panel's top Republican, said the documents also "show that the government sought to manage the public disclosure of Merrill's mounting losses in order to control the situation."

Democratic Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns of New York said serious questions remain as to the timing of events.

"Why did a private business deal -- announced in September and approved by shareholders in December -- with no mention of government assistance, end up costing taxpayers $20 billion in January?" Towns asked.

Bank of America has received $45 billion from the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. As part of that money, the bank received $20 billion in January after Lewis requested it to help offset mounting losses at Merrill Lynch & Co.

Just a few weeks after the deal was completed, Bank of America's fourth-quarter earnings report showed the hit taken by its balance sheet because of the Merrill Lynch transaction, which made Lewis the target of shareholder anger.

In January, Bank of America reported a $2.39 billion fourth-quarter loss, and Merrill Lynch disclosed a loss of more than $15 billion.

There's an update on the hearings from this morning. Source: Yahoo Finance

 

[Idog1976]

What if there was some possible evidence that the 1st amendment was passed improperly? Or the 2nd? Should we then stop enforcing those? What if it turns out that we stole all this land from the Native Americans? Should we give it back?

barfo

You can only respond to events after they have happened. There is no evidence of the 1st amendment being improperly passed, it's part of the bill of rights for crying out loud. Unless you are a supporter of pre-emption you can only deal with things after they have happened. History is altered all the time due to discovery of new information. Likewise during a court proceeding the discovery period can bring up new facts that radically alter the final decision in a case. Since there is evidence that the 16th amendment wasn't passed appropriately we ought to pursue it. If it is a just amendment that we all agree with, then it should have no problem passing. I'm sure the 14th amendment for example would sail right through. The 16th? Maybe not.

As to your point about Native Americans I happen to believe there should be some sort of reparation given to Native Americans. Certainly we should stop using eminent domain to steal land on Indian Reservations, such as was the case on Navajo lands with uranium mines in the not too distant past. Germany was helped after WW II with the Marshal Plan and probably prevented another war in europe. By contrast the economic imperialism of the North during the reconstruction has led to a still lingering hatred and divisiveness in the South even 150 years later. Certainly, the Treaty of Versailles with it's onerous burden on the defeated Germany led directly to WWII.

Also there have been successful challenges to the IRS. Admittedly, few and far between. I simply think this is a subject that deserves more investigation.

In my opinion the creation of the FED which was actually legal, is far more troublesome. Bernake admitted the FED created the first great depression and there are signs their actions over the past decade and currently are ushering in a new one.

 

[barfo]

You can only respond to events after they have happened. There is no evidence of the 1st amendment being improperly passed, it's part of the bill of rights for crying out loud. Unless you are a supporter of pre-emption you can only deal with things after they have happened. History is altered all the time due to discovery of new information. Likewise during a court proceeding the discovery period can bring up new facts that radically alter the final decision in a case.

Right, I wasn't saying let's assume that the first amendment wasn't passed correctly, I was saying let's suppose it wasn't passed correctly. It is possible to consider it as a hypothetical.

Since there is evidence that the 16th amendment wasn't passed appropriately we ought to pursue it.

You should feel free to do so. I haven't looked into it enough to convince myself there is any evidence, and I am unlikely to look into it much further, because it seems to me a fool's errand. The IRS isn't going to go away, even if you were to produce incontrovertible evidence that the 16th amendment didn't really pass. But it is nevertheless an interesting historical question about whether there was chicanery involved. I'll be interested to hear the answer, should a definitive one ever emerge.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

Right, I wasn't saying let's assume that the first amendment wasn't passed correctly, I was saying let's suppose it wasn't passed correctly. It is possible to consider it as a hypothetical.



You should feel free to do so. I haven't looked into it enough to convince myself there is any evidence, and I am unlikely to look into it much further, because it seems to me a fool's errand. The IRS isn't going to go away, even if you were to produce incontrovertible evidence that the 16th amendment didn't really pass. But it is nevertheless an interesting historical question about whether there was chicanery involved. I'll be interested to hear the answer, should a definitive one ever emerge.

barfo

I'm actually increasingly for a Flat Tax with a related consumption / import of luxury goods type tax and doing away with the current income tax as it is regressively centered on the middle class. It would have to include things brought in from other countries or else the rich would be excluded. It would also have to exclude most foods. There would probably have to be a lower limit (survival consumption) that would be tax free. Of course while we are at it I would love to see a voluntary 2 children only movement in this country, but that ain't gonna happen.

I agree that the IRS is here to stay. As I said before there are worse things that have been "legally" passed such as warrantless wiretapping, the FED, various constitution shredding bills by both parties etc.

Of course hypotheticals are ok but sometimes they lead further away from the matter at hand. I felt like it was one of those situations that kind of led far afield from what we were saying. I also don't think you can ever be 100% logically consistent and even remotely ethical or reasonable. Life isn't logically consistent and neither is my worldview I admit that because it's reality.

 

[hasoos]

And FWIW, AT&T was sold for scraps during the Clinton years (dot bomb bubble burst).

The mobile business was bought by Cingular who later took on the name AT&T.

There was no turnaround there.

Well what do you expect? All of the land line phone services are doomed. It doesn't matter who the president is, they were going down.

 

[barfo]

I'm actually increasingly for a Flat Tax with a related consumption / import of luxury goods type tax and doing away with the current income tax as it is regressively centered on the middle class.

Wouldn't bother me any if we did that.

It would have to include things brought in from other countries or else the rich would be excluded. It would also have to exclude most foods. There would probably have to be a lower limit (survival consumption) that would be tax free.

Well, once you get started on making exceptions, pretty soon you end up with a tax code the size of the current one. Better to have no exceptions for anything. Well, I'd make one exception - no income tax for those under $X of income.

Of course while we are at it I would love to see a voluntary 2 children only movement in this country, but that ain't gonna happen.

1.7 would be plenty.

I agree that the IRS is here to stay. As I said before there are worse things that have been "legally" passed such as warrantless wiretapping, the FED, various constitution shredding bills by both parties etc.

Agreed.

Of course hypotheticals are ok but sometimes they lead further away from the matter at hand. I felt like it was one of those situations that kind of led far afield from what we were saying. I also don't think you can ever be 100% logically consistent and even remotely ethical or reasonable. Life isn't logically consistent and neither is my worldview I admit that because it's reality.

Fair enough. The only way to be truly consistent is to take everything to some ridiculous extreme.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

Well then allow me to

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/16th.htm

17 F.Supp. 237

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
George M. HOUSE and Marion M. House, Defendants.
Nos. G85-23-01 CR, G85-23-02 CR.
United States District Court,
W.D. Michigan.
June 7, 1985.

George M. House and Marion M. House, in pro. per.
Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendants.
David M. Brown and Dana Boente, Dept. of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for plaintiff.

OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO DISMISS

MILES, Chief Judge.

Defendants were indicted on March 7, 1985 on seven counts of tax
evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7201, and seven counts of failure to
file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 12, 1985, claiming that
the sixteenth amendment which grants Congress the power to lay taxes was
never properly ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been
passed pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment are
null and void.

The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on April 30, 1985.
On May 21, 1985, the date noticed for jury selection, defendants submitted
a motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss on the basis that
the Court had not had the opportunity to consider all the evidence on the
subject of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment.

A hearing was held on Saturday, May 25, 1985. At that time
defendants introduced the testimony of William Benson, co-author of the
book, The Law That Never Was (1985). Mr. Benson testified that he had
researched the legislative history of the sixteenth amendment and had
discovered that in the ratification process only four states had passed
resolutions that quoted absolutely and accurately the sixteenth amendment
as proposed by Congress. All the other states which had allegedly passed
the amendment had in fact passed resolutions that in one or more ways
differed from the language of the Congressional resolution.

It is defendants' contention that Philander Knox, then Secretary
of State, was aware of the differences between the Congressional and the
state versions of the proposed amendment, but that he nevertheless
certified the amendment as having been ratified. This action, defendants
contend, was in violation of the law, and rendered void the certification
process.

The matter of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment as set
forth by the defendants is one of first impression. It has never been
before any appellate court of our nation.

In support of their contentions defendants introduced copies of
what Mr. Benson testified were certified documents he had obtained from
the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and copies of certified
documents he had obtained from eight of the forty-eight states he had
visited during his research. Over the objection of the government, which
had never had an opportunity to review the voluminous documents, the Court
agreed to provisionally admit the documents into evidence.

The documents illustrate that Secretary of State Philander Knox
was aware in 1913 that the resolutions passed by the various states were
not in every particular identical to the resolution adopted by Congress.

Philander Knox nevertheless certified that thirty-six states had ratified
the amendment. Some of the variances noted by Mr. Benson were the use of
the word "sources" instead of "source," the word "levy" instead of "lay,"
the word "income" instead of "incomes," and differences in capitalization
and punctuation. Mr. Benson presented evidence that Minnesota did not
provide a copy of the resolution it passed, even though the state of
Wyoming was specifically required to do so. He also presented evidence
that the state of Kentucky had never properly ratified the sixteenth
amendment.

Defendants have not, in either their initial motion or in their
motion for reconsideration, asserted any authority for their contention
that state resolutions are invalid if they do not exactly mirror in every
particular the amendment as proposed by Congress. Mr. Benson testified
that he was aware of no constitutional provision, no statute, and no cases
which state that errors in punctuation render an attempted ratification
null and void. Defendants' only authority for their assertion that the
ratification attempts were invalid is found in a Library of Congress
Congressional Research Service publication dated April 18, 1980. That
publication, according to defendant, states that the joint resolution must
contain in full the exact language of the proposed amendment, and that it
must contain a clear, unequivocal ratification clause. Defendants have
offered no evidence that such a publication is binding on this Court at
the present time, or on Philander Knox in 1913.

Neither has defendant offered any evidence that the variations of
text affected in any material way the meaning or intent of the sixteenth
amendment. Defendants have not shown the Court any evidence that a
resolution containing the word "levy" means anything different from a
resolution containing the word "lay." Neither have they shown any
significance deriving from the addition of the letter "s" to the word
"source" or the deletion of the letter "s" from the word "incomes."

Defendants have not shown that the meaning of the amendment was altered in
any way by the omission of a comma or the failure to capitalize a word.
Defendants have merely pointed to technical variances which may be
of some historical interest, but which have no substantive effect on the
meaning of the sixteenth amendment.

(More at the link)

 

[Idog1976]

Well after reading Denny's legalese unto bleeding eyeballs it looks like there is not substantial evidence that the 16th amendment was passed unfairly. I'm not sure this is the only court challenge and I'm curious if there are other aspects to it. I know it was passed with the understanding that it would be a war time tax but it's not like laws aren't passed all the time through political misrepresentation. I haven't looked into it enough to know and it appears there might not be much to it. Good find Denny.

 

[uosean]

[video=youtube;xuxc2rl38rg]"]

 

[Denny Crane]

The point of my post is that every way people have tried to argue that the IRS and income tax are illegal or unconstitutional has been rejected by the courts.

I think it really is unconstitutional as-is, because you are guilty until proven innocent. If they audit you and say you owe $100, you have to prove you don't.

And that's been tried in the courts, too, without success.