Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Congress sets the ethics standards - no wonder our tax laws & enforcement are a m

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Congress sets the ethics standards - no wonder our tax laws & enforcement are a m

    Congress May Eliminate "No Work, No Pay" Law
    (NTU Taxpayer Update, June 30, 2005)

    "Last week a Senate Committee approved appropriations legislation that would
    repeal Title 2, Section 39 of the U.S. Code, which states that Congressional
    administrators "shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic
    payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his
    salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House,
    respectively, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such
    absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family." NTU has
    long sought enforcement of this law, but Congress has been reluctant to do
    so. "

    Ref: http://www.ntu.org/main/press_releas...4&org_name=NTU

    ----------------------------------------------
    " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
    with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
    (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

    ak



  • #2
    Congress sets the ethics standards - no wonder Andy is a mess


    Just tell the truth Andy. Just once.



    --
    Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
    1. All the DNA is the same.
    2. There are no dental records.
    --------------------------
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia


    Comment


    • #3
      Congress sets the ethics standards - no wonder Andy is a mess


      Just tell the truth Andy. Just once.



      --
      Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
      1. All the DNA is the same.
      2. There are no dental records.
      --------------------------
      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
      Athens, Georgia


      Comment


      • #4
        TRUTH - Just for Paul

        The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
        of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
        of the UNITED STATES SENATE

        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

        Second Session February 1982

        Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        "
        . . . .

        No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
        recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
        these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
        which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
        have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
        history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
        Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
        apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
        and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
        from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
        guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
        arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
        constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
        second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
        instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
        regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
        bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
        that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
        of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
        Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
        doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

        When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
        Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
        blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
        for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
        all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
        distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
        minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
        other rights that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
        be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
        security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
        arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
        this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
        proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
        then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
        ----------------------------------------------
        " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
        with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
        (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

        ak





        Comment


        • #5
          TRUTH - Just for Paul

          The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
          of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
          of the UNITED STATES SENATE

          NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

          Second Session February 1982

          Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          "
          . . . .

          No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
          recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
          these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
          which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
          have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
          history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
          Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
          apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
          and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
          from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
          guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
          arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
          constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
          second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
          instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
          regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
          bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
          that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
          of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
          Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
          doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

          When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
          Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
          blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
          for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
          all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
          distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
          minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
          other rights that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
          be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
          security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
          arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
          this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
          proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
          then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
          ----------------------------------------------
          " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
          with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
          (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

          ak





          Comment


          • #6
            TRUTH - It ain't what Andy thinks it is


            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE


            Yet, in all that, nothing about shooting "government operatives". No sir.
            Not a peep. In fact, nothing about protecting your house either.

            Yet, you said, and I quote:

            On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence


            So, where ~do~ you get your beliefs from? Clearly it doesn't come from the
            Constitution, nor any authoritative literature you have posted so far.

            I suppose you get your "facts" the same place you get your truths from. The
            hollows of your head?



            --
            If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
            ----------------
            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            Athens, Georgia


            Comment


            • #7
              TRUTH - It ain't what Andy thinks it is



              "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]
              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE
              Yet, in all that, nothing about shooting "government operatives". No sir. Not a peep. In fact, nothing about protecting your house either.
              Well jerk Thomas - I don't shoot anyone who isn't threatening me and
              breaking the law.

              And to date, I've never had to point a weapon at anyone - and hope to keep
              it that way.

              But the truth isn't what you are all about.

              ----------------------------------------------
              " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
              with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
              (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

              ak



              Comment


              • #8
                TRUTH - It ain't what Andy thinks it is



                "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE
                Yet, in all that, nothing about shooting "government operatives". No sir. Not a peep. In fact, nothing about protecting your house either.
                Well jerk Thomas - I don't shoot anyone who isn't threatening me and
                breaking the law.

                And to date, I've never had to point a weapon at anyone - and hope to keep
                it that way.

                But the truth isn't what you are all about.

                ----------------------------------------------
                " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                ak



                Comment


                • #9
                  TRUTH - It ain't what Andy thinks it is


                  "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                  Well jerk Thomas - I don't shoot anyone who isn't threatening me and breaking the law.

                  No, no, no. You said:

                  On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                  "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                  Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                  If they don't do their "due diligence" they could still be within the bounds
                  of the law. Nothing in your statement indicates that you would only shoot
                  those who are "breaking the law" (of which you have no clue if they are
                  within or without the law at the time you pull the trigger). What your
                  basically said was: "I'm gonna shoot (with my 12 gauge) anyone who comes
                  into my house that I don't like".


                  And to date, I've never had to point a weapon at anyone - and hope to keep it that way.

                  That is cute and all fuzzy, but it doesn't detract from your threat to shoot
                  a "government operative".

                  But the truth isn't what you are all about.
                  These are your words Andy, and you have yet to prove they are true:

                  On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                  "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                  free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                  "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                  On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                  "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                  can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                  On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                  "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                  to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                  to be part of the National Guard."



                  Just one cite to the original statement by me where I said anything like
                  that.



                  --
                  "Under certain circumstances profanity provides a relief denied by prayer"
                  Mark Twain
                  ---------------------------------------------
                  Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                  Athens, Georgia
                  taxman at negia dot net


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    TRUTH - It ain't what Andy thinks it is


                    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    Well jerk Thomas - I don't shoot anyone who isn't threatening me and breaking the law.

                    No, no, no. You said:

                    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                    If they don't do their "due diligence" they could still be within the bounds
                    of the law. Nothing in your statement indicates that you would only shoot
                    those who are "breaking the law" (of which you have no clue if they are
                    within or without the law at the time you pull the trigger). What your
                    basically said was: "I'm gonna shoot (with my 12 gauge) anyone who comes
                    into my house that I don't like".


                    And to date, I've never had to point a weapon at anyone - and hope to keep it that way.

                    That is cute and all fuzzy, but it doesn't detract from your threat to shoot
                    a "government operative".

                    But the truth isn't what you are all about.
                    These are your words Andy, and you have yet to prove they are true:

                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                    to be part of the National Guard."



                    Just one cite to the original statement by me where I said anything like
                    that.



                    --
                    "Under certain circumstances profanity provides a relief denied by prayer"
                    Mark Twain
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                    Athens, Georgia
                    taxman at negia dot net


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Truly, get help Paul

                      Get help Paul and stop assisting the tax protesters, while embarrassing
                      legitimate tax professionals who wish you could just offer tax information
                      or shut up

                      You do need professional help Paul. Check it out with a friend, if you have
                      such a thing.

                      Try one of these local sources of help for you problems, Paul:

                      http://www.theophostic.com/displayco...barticlenbr=40

                      Athens Area Commencement Center
                      http://alcoholism.about.com/od/tx_ga/qt/ga011.htm

                      Georgia Rehabs & Counseling Centers Athens GA Mix of mental health and
                      substance abuse services Organization City State

                      http://therapistunlimited.com/rehabs...havioral+Healt
                      h+Systems/

                      Advantage Behavioral Health Systems Athens GA
                      Athens Regional Medical Center Athens GA
                      DM and ADR Inc Athens GA
                      Family Counseling Service of Athens Athens GA
                      Georgia Therapy Associates Athens GA
                      Revolutions Counseling Services, LLC. Athens GA

                      Lisa Anger, LCSW Athens GA

                      Michael Bach, Clinical Psychologist, Athens, GA 30605

                      Michele Hunter, Ed.D, LPC Athens, GA 30605

                      Angela Londono-McConnell Licensed Psychologist -- Athens, GA 30601

                      J. Kip Matthews, Licensed Psychologist -- Athens, GA 30601

                      Please Paul Thomas - call/write one of above and get the help you need.
                      Or would you like me to do it for you??
                      ----------------------------------------------
                      " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                      with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                      (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                      ak


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Truly, get help Paul

                        Get help Paul and stop assisting the tax protesters, while embarrassing
                        legitimate tax professionals who wish you could just offer tax information
                        or shut up

                        You do need professional help Paul. Check it out with a friend, if you have
                        such a thing.

                        Try one of these local sources of help for you problems, Paul:

                        http://www.theophostic.com/displayco...barticlenbr=40

                        Athens Area Commencement Center
                        http://alcoholism.about.com/od/tx_ga/qt/ga011.htm

                        Georgia Rehabs & Counseling Centers Athens GA Mix of mental health and
                        substance abuse services Organization City State

                        http://therapistunlimited.com/rehabs...havioral+Healt
                        h+Systems/

                        Advantage Behavioral Health Systems Athens GA
                        Athens Regional Medical Center Athens GA
                        DM and ADR Inc Athens GA
                        Family Counseling Service of Athens Athens GA
                        Georgia Therapy Associates Athens GA
                        Revolutions Counseling Services, LLC. Athens GA

                        Lisa Anger, LCSW Athens GA

                        Michael Bach, Clinical Psychologist, Athens, GA 30605

                        Michele Hunter, Ed.D, LPC Athens, GA 30605

                        Angela Londono-McConnell Licensed Psychologist -- Athens, GA 30601

                        J. Kip Matthews, Licensed Psychologist -- Athens, GA 30601

                        Please Paul Thomas - call/write one of above and get the help you need.
                        Or would you like me to do it for you??
                        ----------------------------------------------
                        " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                        with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                        (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                        ak


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Truly, tell the truth Andy


                          No, no, no. You said:

                          On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                          "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                          If they don't do their "due diligence" they could still be within the bounds
                          of the law. Nothing in your statement indicates that you would only shoot
                          those who are "breaking the law" (of which you have no clue if they are
                          within or without the law at the time you pull the trigger). What your
                          basically said was: "I'm gonna shoot (with my 12 gauge) anyone who comes
                          into my house that I don't like".


                          And to date, I've never had to point a weapon at anyone - and hope to keep it that way.

                          That is cute and all fuzzy, but it doesn't detract from your threat to shoot
                          a "government operative".

                          But the truth isn't what you are all about.
                          These are your words Andy, and you have yet to prove they are true:

                          On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                          free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                          "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                          On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                          can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                          On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                          to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                          to be part of the National Guard."



                          Just one cite to the original statement by me where I said anything like
                          that.



                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Truly, tell the truth Andy


                            No, no, no. You said:

                            On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                            If they don't do their "due diligence" they could still be within the bounds
                            of the law. Nothing in your statement indicates that you would only shoot
                            those who are "breaking the law" (of which you have no clue if they are
                            within or without the law at the time you pull the trigger). What your
                            basically said was: "I'm gonna shoot (with my 12 gauge) anyone who comes
                            into my house that I don't like".


                            And to date, I've never had to point a weapon at anyone - and hope to keep it that way.

                            That is cute and all fuzzy, but it doesn't detract from your threat to shoot
                            a "government operative".

                            But the truth isn't what you are all about.
                            These are your words Andy, and you have yet to prove they are true:

                            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                            free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                            "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                            can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                            On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                            to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                            to be part of the National Guard."



                            Just one cite to the original statement by me where I said anything like
                            that.



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Truly, tell the truth Andy

                              Get help Paul and stop assisting the tax protesters, while embarrassing
                              legitimate tax professionals who wish you could just offer tax information
                              or shut up

                              ----------------------------------------------
                              " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                              with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                              (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                              ak


                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X