Roland Allen Pelletier - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

             he made in the trial memorandum he had already submitted.                
             Petitioner did not submit a new trial memorandum to the                  
                  Shortly thereafter, respondent filed a motion for                   
             judgment on the pleadings in which respondent states that                
             the only issue raised by petitioner is:                                  

                  whether the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitu-                    
                  tion is illegal because it violates the basic                       
                  body of the Constitution, tramples over the Bill                    
                  of Rights, and collects taxes upon wages rather                     
                  than income as specified in the amendment.                          

             The memorandum filed by respondent in support of the motion              
             cites various cases in which the Courts of Appeals have                  
             upheld the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and cases in               
             which courts have rejected the contention that wages are                 
             not income.  Respondent's memorandum also states as                      

                  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to which                        
                  circuit an appeal would lie in this case, has                       
                  also held that wages are income within the                          
                  meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and considers                    
                  any arguments to the contrary to be frivolous                       
                  subjecting the party asserting them to possible                     
                  sanctions.  United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d                       
                  942, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1990).                                         

             We calendared respondent's motion for a hearing at the                   
             Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, trial session.                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011