(bolding added).Now, if SCOTUS is quoting a lower court ruling, they are doing so for the purpose of factual consideration within their own trial, regardless of how brief the quote is, correct? Thus, the context of that quote becomes a decision pertaining to SCOTUS, no? So far as the case being vacated, unless it was vacated for reason pertaining to the quoted text, it is still standing, no? Or is this quote ineffective and should it just be removed, all together?
I am wondering if this is just yet one more desperate attempt on the part of the Quacklosians?
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 1278#11278
Later, Weston goes on to say that:
Hey Weston, your legal analysis skills are on about the same par as Peter Hendrickson's theories of tax law. And, regarding the "vacating in part" argument: nice try; no cigar, Weston.SCOTUS simply adopts the findings of the lower court. After all the court is a venue in which one stays on precise and exact topic, it is not meant as a soapbox for wild baseless, speculative, unsupported tangents.
That is an even better idea, just quote the paragraph as stated within the SCOTUS case and most of all their argument then dissolves. Thanks for pointing that out, heh.
Weston! Talk about wild, baseless, speculative, unsupported tangents!
It's the Court of Appeals in the Murphy case that is quoting the Supreme Court, not the other way around. The Supreme Court case was decided in 1925. The Murphy case was decided over 80 years later. So how could the Supreme Court be adopting the reasoning of the lower court? Where did you learn to read?
Oh, and by the way, regarding your language about the Supreme Court and "their own trial" -- the United States Supreme Court does not generally conduct "trials." It's an appellate court -- the highest court in the land.
The Murphy case had nothing to do with the wacky theories in Hendrickson's Cracking the Code. After vacating its own decision, the Court of Appeals in Murphy ruled: (1) that the taxpayer's compensation was received on account of a non-physical injury or sickness; (2) that gross income under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC 61, does include compensatory damages for non-physical injuries, even if the award is not an "accession to wealth," (3) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the recovery is restoration of "human capital," and therefore the tax does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 9, that capitations or other direct taxes must be laid among the states only in proportion to the population; (4) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 8, that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform throughout the United States; (5) that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Internal Revenue Service may not be sued in its own name. Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv., 493 F.3d 170, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,531 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Even more devastating for Weston White and his fellow Propeller Heads: After vacating its original decision, the Court of Appeals in Murphy also stated: "[a]lthough the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,' [ . . . ] it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority, which includes not only the Sixteenth Amendment but also Article I, Sections 8 and 9." Id. The court ruled that Ms. Murphy was not entitled to the tax refund she claimed, and that the personal injury award she received was "within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" -- even if the award was "not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment".Id.
Nothing in either the Murphy case or the Burk-Waggoner case helps the Space Cadets at losthorizons.
