User talk:Bobbyppp

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. FiggyBee 09:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Bobbyppp: The material you inserted in the article on Tax protester constitutional arguments on 16 November 2006, may have had its origin at the "We the People" tax protester web site at http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update04-May-10.htm. Obviously, this violates copyright and numerous Wikipedia policies including Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Also, tax protester web sites are not suitable authoritative sources for "what the law is." I know you may have copied it from somewhere else, because tax protester rhetoric is copied and pasted on the internet all the time.


 * The material was also blatantly false, with phony descriptions of what the Supreme Court ruled in cases like Brushaber. For example, the following statement was included in the text dump: "However, in 1916, the Supreme Court brought the devilish action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber (and the cases bundled with it), that wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."


 * That statement is totally false. The web site in question is littered with similar other falsehoods.


 * The Court in Brushaber ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes (whether considered to be direct taxes or indirect taxes) be apportioned among the states according to population. The Court also ruled that the Revenue Act of 1913, imposing unapportioned income taxes, is not unconstitutional. The Court further ruled that the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. The Court also ruled that the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Neither in Brushaber nor in any other Federal court case has any Federal court ever ruled that "wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."


 * Not only that, but the issue of whether wages are income was not even decided by the Court in Brushaber. That issue was not even presented to the Court in Brushaber. The terms "wage," "wages," "salary," and "salaries" do not even appear in the text of Brushaber. The actual text of the Supreme Court decision in Brushaber is available at http://www.findlaw.com.


 * Before believing tax protester web sites that blatantly claim that a court ruled a certain way in a particular case, you may want to consider reading the actual texts of those court decisions. Tax protester web sites are highly unreliable for purposes of Wikipedia, and copying and pasting material from these web sites is not generally acceptable. Yours, Famspear 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)