Law Questions and Answers

If someone over hears a threat made toward me can the police do anything?

Someone hear 3 kids say they be going to f-up my car beside a knife and consequently me with a stick. The car get messed up 2 days ago...im afraid im next..can the police formulate an arrest?

Answers: Just the words can get them charged near terroristic threats, and I have see this happen so budge get them thugs approaching now!

No, but they can definitely question them.

Don't be a *****. Just phone the police. They know what they can do.

make the complaint (when you get the complaint about the sports car damage, right to be heard you suspect you know who did it and even though you don't have evidence, bring up to date them he's been making threats) if zilch else it puts the guy on the police's radar and maybe see if he have warrants or a history of sternness. also, if something should happen to you, know that he's probably gonna catch popped for it. i know, small consolation for losing a pint of blood and having several unintended holes surrounded by you, but it's something.

but if the guy wants to jack you up, he's probably gonna do it, restraining decree or not. and if you get him arrested he'll probably even return with more mad.

a moment ago lay low. always own other people around and avoid obscurity alleys.

good luck and embezzle care of yourself.

In short, no. If you are subsequently assaulted or harmed, I'm sure the police would next be interested. Was there an eye-witness to the disrupt of your car? Stay protected.

Did you know there is not a LAW stateing that you own to pay your income taxes?

Seriously the sixth amendment be never ratified into canon. Supreme court did not pass it within 1913.

and the federal reserve bank is a private wall issuing money out of thin nouns, that is why the dollar have no value anymore.

look it up you will find that it is true

Answers: Did you know that you are wrong?

1. There is a tenet stating you have to salary income taxes. It is Title 26 U.S.C. Title 26 is the codification of the various act passed by Congress concerning taxes.
http://www.regulation.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...

2. The 16th amendment was ratify. The book, "The Law That Never Was" is full of errors and misconceptions. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986) the court stated, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states have ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ declaration is not transparently defective. We need not want when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed within order to know that Secretary Knox’ declaration is now beyond review."

3. The Supreme Court does not overhaul or ratify bills or laws. That is a function of Congress. The Supreme Court expresses an judgment about what a statute means and if someone challenge a law on Constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court will desire if the law is Constitutional.

4. You are wrong something like the Federal Reserve too. However, there is not adequate room here to cover a complete class on the Federal Reserve system. I bet you read or were told that the Federal Reserve have never been audited too. Here is a correlation to the INDEPENDENT AUDITS of the Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/...
BTW, those are part of the Federal Reserve's Annual Report to Congress.

5. If you bookish this in Government class, your professor desires to be fired or else you misunderstood and you necessitate to pay more attention.

6. You also involve to read the Constitution. NOWHERE does it state that income only applies to corporations. Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Congress shall own Power To lay and collect Taxes..."
The 16th amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from anything source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and in need regard to any opinion poll or enumeration."
In Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 296 (1998), the court stated, "Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct levy on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise duty on the privilege of engaging within some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can simply be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many grip citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens."

7. Income taxes move about into the general fund and Congress decide what to do with it after that. No, income taxes do not simply go to paying interest on the debt. A little research clearly shows that. In 2006, the Government compensated a little over $405 billion surrounded by interest on the U.S. Government debt. In 2006, the Government collected $1.04 trillion in individual income rates revenue alone.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/...

8. Also, very little interest get paid to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve merely holds about $800 billion of the U.S. Government debt. In 2006, the U.S. Government rewarded $36.5 billion as interest on that debt. However, the Federal Reserve is REQUIRED BY LAW to return excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury. Once the Federal Reserve have paid adjectives expenses, the excess is paid to the U.S. Treasury. In 2006, the Federal Reserve remunerated $29.1 billion to the U.S. Treasury. This can clearly be seen on the financial statements I related to earlier.

9. The show "Freedom to Fascism" is full of inaccuracies and falsehoods. Just roughly every quote in the show is taken out of context. For example, the quote from President Clinton was from a speech he give on GUN CONTROL. It wasn't about taxes or the Federal Reserve. Also, the Woodrow Wilson quote be never made. Woodrow Wilson did say different parts of that quote, but he didn't say them contained by 1919. He said them during various battle speeches in 1911 and 1912. Also, he be discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve. You can read that fact for yourself surrounded by Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom" at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

10. You are sort of right about the 16th amendment did not make a contribution Congress the power to tax incomes, but not for the plea you think. The 16th amendment give Congress "no new power", because Congress have that power from the beginning. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the court stated, "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it be settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the commencement from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..."
Congress ALWAYS have the power to lay INDIRECT taxes and income taxes are INDIRECT in a Constitutional sense.

11. The 16th amendment wasn't passed by Congress within 1913. It was passed by Congress surrounded by 1909. When you talk going on for Christmas 1913, you are probably referring to the Federal Reserve act of 1913, which be passed by the House on Dec. 23, 1913. It was also passed by the Senate on Dec. 23, 1913. However, did you bother to look up what the Congressional Record have for attendance on those days?
On Dec. 22, 1913, the House passed the Federal Reserve Act with a vote of 298 to 60. That is 358 member of the House out of a total of 435. That is 82%! How does that equate to most were out for the holidays? The Senate passed it by a vote of 45 to 23. That is 68 out of 96. That's more than partially too.

12. Ok, I have looked it up and here isn't a single thing true within your entire question.

EDIT: Your appendix concerning the Stanton case that I quoted shows that you know nil about decree. However, I cited that case to show that levy protestors routinely misquote the case. In Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998) the court stated, Plaintiff argues ‘income’ should be interpreted as fixed to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which mark out the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that just corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, heaps of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED”. See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton’s Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In picky, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as grand a tax on “every personality residing in the United States . . . upon the entire network income arising and accruing from adjectives sources”. Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position."
ruling aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999). In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, “Tornichio’s officially recognized assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual’s taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate happenings,” and imposed additional sanction for filing a frivolous appeal.

Also, Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCas 650,487, KTC 2002-457, aff’d Docket: 02-16428, KTC 2003-327 (9th Cir. 2003) the court stated, "One of the basis for Plaintiff’s position is that he had no taxable income since “income” can single be a derivative of corporate activity. This position, however, is simply untenable and is directly contrary to the imperative."

In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income duty was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct duty.”

In United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994), the court stated, "We have rejected, on numerous occasion, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct import tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)"

Finally, if you don't want to pay taxes, step ahead and try and declare yourself exempt. Declaring yourself exempt if you are not exempt is ILLEGAL. Also, be prepared for a vivacity of grief because if the IRS decides to collect what you owe them, they will come bring back it by garnishing your wages, putting levies on your home and any retirement accouts you may hold. Basically, you will be broke after they get done near you. So, if you are smart, you will pay your taxes. Also, you will give somebody a lift another government class beside a different professor.

NO, this is not true. It is just Internet tripe. There are MANY MANY law around Income Tax.

And the government have every right to prosecute you under those law if you choose to break them.

This is just another "Internet Fact" explicitly totally bull. Just people who resembling to make stuff up for this rationale, to get gullible inhabitants to believe them.

If you decide to belief this litter, have fun at your trial!

16th amendment (income tax)... the following states ratify the amendment
1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
2. The Commonwealth of Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911)
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913)

Technically you are correct, and income taxes are unConstitutional.

*However* the Supreme Court has contracted that the 16th Amendment will be interpreted as the right to collect income tax-and have also used it as precendent within many cases, granting it a sense of legitimacy despite it's unConstitutionality. The Supreme Court also set the definition of income as it relates to the 16th Amendment. In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., the Supreme Court defined "income" cliché that income tax could be taken on "accession to wealth, clearly realize, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." This definition have been supported by the Supreme Court to include any increase surrounded by wealth including wages, benefits, bonuses, Dutch auction of stock or property, gambling winnings, punitive damages within a lawsuit, and even *FINDING MONEY IN THE STREET*...all are considered taxable income by the federal elected representatives, and failure to clear will put you away. (Look at Al Capone-he did 20 years for tax evasion.)

The truth of the situation is that no matter how unConstitutional it is, we are forced to comply near it until we get leaders contained by office that will support the people's right to their Constitutional organization. That's why it's so important who you vote for.

If you really did swot up this from your government class, I discern sorry for your classmates. None of what you just said make sense.

There are arguments as to why the Income Tax should be repealed, but try not paying them now and see what happen.

Traffic ticket-legal advise?

I be parked outside of a store and was standing on the side of the building. An officer drive around the store and and up and down the road watching me for over an hour, afterwards he pulled in subsequent to me. He started yelling at me and next said he was giving me tickets for insurance reason. Are they aloud to give me tickets all right I am parked and out of my car. I live contained by upstate new york.

Answers: That's strange. I don't see what you standing outside your vehicle by a building has to do next to your car insurance. Is that the complete story?
You may want to dispute that ticket in court.

seig heil!!! we are not free

Is ethics only just another burden on companies or does it pays to be ethical?

Answers: money is worth more than human life contained by our modern time. i don't agree with it, but it's true.

I guess it depends on if you want to fashion money morally and legally.
Or, to thieve a most recent example, behave like the Chinese companies hold and use items in their products that can produce illness, approaching ethelyne glycol, an ingredient in antifreeze, within toothpaste. Or using lead surrounded by paint for toys.
A company that doesn't have an ethical practice shouldn't be within business.
Ethics covers a lot of kingdom. Like sexual harassment, hiring or firing base on color, age, sex, etc.

Look we must prefer ethics than any other gain, gains that might be hugely personal must not be entertained. But if it is the choice between the profit and nouns we must choose the ethics over the Profitabilty if profitability is concider to be contained by monetary term simply.

otherWise the organisation is a sole seprate entity and as a fictious person it is newly to be ethical instead of any other wicked or immodest moves.

Ethics are the block of our society and its related to seperate culture but i know that every culture highly high regard ethics.

Bye

Legal question?

is it endorsed for an officer to give me ticket when i am parked at a convenent store and out of the vehicle surrounded by upstate new york? the key were surrounded by my pocket.

Answers: The Officer already knew your license be suspended, probably from running your license plate. He may have be following you when he ran the plate. He be just waiting for you to come put money on to the car.

How did he know your license be suspended?

But yes he can give you a ticket for this, however if you show the traffic intermediary when you received the letter of suspension and compare it to the date of the ticket, here will be little doubt you could not have certain.

I tis your responsibility to re-register your car.

That sticker have been shouting the due date month at you for an entire month plus a grace extent he was nice ample to give you. Every time you walk by the car it be there!

16, 18, 21, 25 BoGUS?

16 y/o = legal sexual age
18 y/o = lawful smoking/war-army age
21 y/o = legal drinking age
25 y/o = allowed age to rent a car???wth?

what make people feel kids are mature adequate to be drafted into war at 18, but not become fully grown enough to drink rightfully?

the level of parenthood is based on the individual, who say you're old plenty to do something or not?? does anyone agree/disagree with these laws/ages? why or why not?

Answers: Hmm, let's see...an 18 y/o is absolutely able to use a firearm but largely acts irresponsibly drinking alcohol. It should be 16 for the military and 25 for adjectives of the others.

I said this so many times.

A. The management would rather not own people drink (well within the past anyway).

B. The body is not grow until around the age 22. Alcohol defects physical and mental readiness.

As for the car... It's only insurance reasons.

18 is the trial sexual age if you want to have sex next to all adults.

I agree drinking age is too illustrious, because there are no other law that keep some adults from doing what other adults can do base on age other then age for organization as mentioned in Constitution. why does this one deserve such a special exemption? (I am waaaay elder the 18 or 21 btw)

As for car rentals, that is to say not a law, that is to say a private company's policy, based on actuarial statistics in connection with their risk of damage. Pretty much duplicate reason your vehicle insurance rates will drop when you hit 25 (if you don't have lots of tickets anyway)

But is it really impossible to rent? IDK, but are nearby places such as "Rent a WrecK" that might be more accommodating? What if you have full insurance of your own? AAA devotion? Do these things help?

What ethical arguments or ideas are used to support the right to residency?

Answers: None. There is no right to nationality really.

My traffic case be dismissed because the cop didn't show up...?

But my bail amount check wasn't refunded to me and it's be over three months.

I called the courts and they told me that they weren't "ordered" to letters me back a check.

I rewarded $565.00 online and did a Trial By Declaration. I received a check of $108.00 from them and telling me I should appear beforehand the judge. I go to court and appeared. The judge told me that my officer didn't show up so I'm dismissed.

What just about my money?

Answers: yeah, if it was bail money i don't contemplate its coming back to you...but you did use the strategy that most Americans don't:help yourself to it to court. cops almost never show up. they haves lives.

Either the Judge forgot to issue the order, or you be assessed court costs. You may have to step back to court, and speak next to the Judge, or one of the clerks if you can't accomplish anything over the phone, or on line.

I want my landlord to remuneration?

I want him to pay for the stress he's cause me and how much BS I had to promise with while renting from him. I still hold 2 weeks until I get my deposit put money on (if I even get it back) and he's not calling me posterior to verify he received the house keys that I dropped stale. This man is the devil - seriously! Below are a list of problems I've have:

1. Entering my apartment without distinguish on multiple occassions.
2. No smoke detector installed when I moved in. I notice this four months afterwards and it took him another month to install.
3. Didn't fix two walls he agreed to when I moved in (but it wasn't surrounded by the lease that he would do this).
4. Never returns my calls when I stipulation something.
5. Had mail sent to my address for the parents of a student not within my city's school district. Then get mad at me and told me to look for a investigational place to live when I told him I wasn't going to accept the messages.

He is IMPOSSIBLE and I want him to pay. I don't watchfulness how. I want revenge. HELP!

Answers: The best way is to lift pictures and write everything down from the first to the last surrounded by detail. Going to court is the wrong thing to do. Contact your local tv station and show them adjectives what he has done over the time you lived in attendance. Every tv station have some type of assist me thing and they will seize better results than taking him to court. When his face is over the evening report he will want to make things right and after the city or county might step in also.

This is American...anybody can sue. You will stipulation to prove damages in instruct to receive a judgment. What you involve is plenty of proof of the "stress" he's caused.

Why are some poor neighborhoods like this???

They live surrounded by areas that are over run with drugs and violence(gang and otherwise) and other say they want it to expiration so there streets can be past the worst yet when ever a crime is committed they turn in attendance backs,sometimes put away the offender and speak I dont want to be a snitch. Why?
To me that makes no sense at adjectives. If I saw a person selling drugs contained by my neighborhood,shoot some one here(or anywere) I would co-operate with the police to bring them off the streets.
You can send for me a snitch but at least my inherited is safe while the criminal is within prison.

So why does this happen?

I grew up hugely poor(still am) and was qualified that doing the right thing designed getting these people sour the streets so our kids can be safe.

Answers: they dont want to frontage retribution from the guys buddies. i understand it, but i dont enjoy to agree with it. some of them freshly dont have the method to move, or their families wont move them because the criminal duration is what they are used to, or the only route they think they are surviving.

i come from a small town where on earth we WOULD report crap like that, but the poor folks surrounded by the inner cities wont.

it's a cycle. it doesn't change because those past them were minus integrity, odds are they are minus integrity, and many of those who follow will be in need integrity.

that's the bottomline. without that, they simply freshly can not see past themselves to donate a darn.

More Questions and Answers:
[606] - [1228] - [2065] - [963] - [1943] - [813] - [418] - [1271] - [2469] - [901] - [1075] - [1909] - [302] - [1280] - [1674] - [2411] - [155] - [832] - [105] - [1998]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: