Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3557
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:51 am

Oh, but you're wrong.

Snipes is old news. Tucker is current hip/chic.

Stand by for a blizzard of PR positioning releases and a behind-closed-doors settlement.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

Sahansdal
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:15 am

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Sahansdal » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:50 pm

Judge,
Hey, I actually got to post again. I'm a long-ago 861 TP. Refresh my memory so I don't have to dig up the case-in-point for why my income is not exempt as domestically earned. I'm sure you know the SCOTUS ruling.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby wserra » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:58 pm

Sahansdal wrote:Refresh my memory so I don't have to dig up the case-in-point for why my income is not exempt as domestically earned.


If you don't understand by now - Rosie having spent time in jail and all - a "refresher" won't help.

I'd try a brick.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Sahansdal
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:15 am

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Sahansdal » Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:35 pm

It's been years since I was actively involved. I'd like to reread the SCOTUS ruling that specifically addresses the assertions Larken Rose made.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby wserra » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:05 pm

Sahansdal wrote:I'd like to reread the SCOTUS ruling that specifically addresses the assertions Larken Rose made.


What makes you think there is one?

My guess is that there is also no "SCOTUS ruling" that holds it illegal to steal a car or shoot someone in the head. Does that mean to you that it's OK to do those things?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Famspear » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:50 am

Sahansdal wrote:Judge,
Hey, I actually got to post again. I'm a long-ago 861 TP. Refresh my memory so I don't have to dig up the case-in-point for why my income is not exempt as domestically earned. I'm sure you know the SCOTUS ruling.


Your income is not exempt unless there is an Internal Revenue Code provision that makes it exempt. Neither section 861 nor any other Code provision makes income exempt merely because it's domestic income.

As noted above, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) hears relatively few cases, and definitely has never agreed to hear a case involving the frivolous "861" argument. The federal courts have consistently ruled that the argument that Section 861 excludes income of U.S. citizens and resident aliens from taxation is without legal merit.

See, for example:

Aiello v. Commissioner, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765, T.C. Memo 1995-40 (1995), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 04&scilh=0.

Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 09&scilh=0.

United States v. Bell, 238 F. Supp. 2d 696, 2003-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,501 (M.D. Pa. 2003), aff'd, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,661 (3d Cir. 2005), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 95&scilh=0.

Corcoran v. Commissioner, case no. 2947-01, T.C. Memo. 2002-18 (2002).

Buckardt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2010-145 (2010), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 61&scilh=0.

Woods v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-38 (2006), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 22&scilh=0.

Loofbourrow v. Commissioner, 208 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D. Tex. 2002), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 65&scilh=0.

Dashiell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-210 (2004), at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 00&scilh=0.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Sahansdal
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:15 am

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Sahansdal » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:07 am

Well, now I remember one thing about all this: The reason I stopped coming to Quatloos. I mistook this for the site to come to for a reasoned and unbiased airing of the issue of taxation. But what else should one expect from an empire built on the confiscation of others' hard-earned income? Not a single one of you or the government that created this monstrosity would exist without the IRS and this scam of over-taxation. Political snipe deleted MOD-ND

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11068
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:41 am

Well, sweetums, we haven't missed you, or in fact even noticed your absence. When you have something to contribute that is "reasoned and unbiased" please feel free to do so. So far I've seen no evidence of you ever actually contributing anything and only your exhibiting your ignorance. Have I missed anything? You're entitled to your opinion, just don't expect anyone to care unless it has some value.
Last edited by notorial dissent on Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed spelling error
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Famspear » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:38 pm

Sahansdal wrote:Well, now I remember one thing about all this: The reason I stopped coming to Quatloos. I mistook this for the site to come to for a reasoned and unbiased airing of the issue of taxation. But what else should one expect from an empire built on the confiscation of others' hard-earned income? Not a single one of you or the government that created this monstrosity would exist without the IRS and this scam of over-taxation.....


Ah, so citing the actual court cases for why the doofus "861" argument is a doofus argument is somehow not "reasoned and unbiased", eh?

By using the phrases "this monstrosity" and "this scam of over-taxation," it is obvious that you mean the internal revenue laws of the United States.

You've just shown us your true colors.

Quatloos is not an "empire," and Quatloos is not "built" on the "confiscation" of other people's income.

People like you -- and Larken ("you're not the boss of me!") Rose -- aren't posing honest arguments about what the law is. When you ask for information on some non-existent U.S. Supreme Court decision, you're not really curious about the answer at all.

You're not really searching for a "reasoned and unbiased airing of the issue of taxation." In reality, you're just against the current system of taxation, and you're only pretending to be interested in learning about what the law is.

That's dishonesty on your part.

I've been studying people like you for over 17 years. You're full of baloney.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Famspear » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:43 pm

I do, however, appreciate your providing me the idea of digging back into my files, from yester-year!

On Larken D. Rose and his wife Tessa:

A loony protester named Larken
To the genuine law would not harken.
Had he stayed on his toes,
He and sweet Tessa Rose
Could’ve spared themselves lives that were darkened.


Aug. 6, 2008, at
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2833&p=43870&hilit=+Tessa#p43870


More on Larken Rose:

A pitiful beggar named Larken
For some donated dollars is barkin’.
If the ranting would stop,
He might not be a flop --
He might find that his mind would be sharpened.


Oct. 16, 2008
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 7:46 am

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby bmxninja357 » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:52 pm

notorial dissent wrote: You're entitiled to your opinion, just don't expect anyone to care unless it has some value.


Is that value taxable?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist)

Peace
Ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3557
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:20 pm

Sahansdal wrote:Judge,
Hey, I actually got to post again. I'm a long-ago 861 TP. Refresh my memory so I don't have to dig up the case-in-point for why my income is not exempt as domestically earned. I'm sure you know the SCOTUS ruling.


As noted previously, there is no SCOTUS ruling on the issue you raise. For there to be one, an appeal from a lower court ruling would have to be filed and accepted by the court. Obviously, that hasn't happened so the lower court's rulings stand.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11068
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:30 pm

bmxninja357 wrote:
notorial dissent wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, just don't expect anyone to care unless it has some value.


Is that value taxable?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist)

Peace
Ninj

For those of the UK persuasion, value added.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Dr. Caligari » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:21 pm

Sahansdal wrote:It's been years since I was actively involved. I'd like to reread the SCOTUS ruling that specifically addresses the assertions Larken Rose made.


Sahansdal, have you succeeded in finding the SCOTUS ruling that says it's illegal for me to cut your head off with a chainsaw on a Thursday night?
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 5013
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:27 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Sahansdal wrote:Judge,
Hey, I actually got to post again. I'm a long-ago 861 TP. Refresh my memory so I don't have to dig up the case-in-point for why my income is not exempt as domestically earned. I'm sure you know the SCOTUS ruling.


As noted previously, there is no SCOTUS ruling on the issue you raise. For there to be one, an appeal from a lower court ruling would have to be filed and accepted by the court. Obviously, that hasn't happened so the lower court's rulings stand.


I'll wager that Sahansdal believes that, without a SCOTUS ruling on Larken Rose's delusions, there is still a chance that they are legally sound. He/she probably doesn't realize that the SCOTUS does not waste its scarce time and resources resolving questions which are meritless. The fact that they have never judged any of Larken's fantasies to have any merit is, in a sense, their ruling that they are, indeed, meritless.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Famspear » Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:28 pm

More cases involving the idiotic "861" argument:

United States v. Marston, 517 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2008), at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 89&scilh=0

Result: prison for Clifford B. Marston.


And: United States v. Clayton, 506 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), cert. denied, case no. 07-904, 552 U.S. 1310 (April 14, 2008), at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 00&scilh=0

(...."Clayton also began writing letters to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and government officials, demanding that they refute the § 861 argument, and meeting with accountants to ask questions about the federal income tax code. Clayton received numerous replies explaining the fallacy of the § 861 argument, which Clayton patently refused to accept......") (emphasis added) Result? Prison for Dr. Charles Thomas Clayton, a follower of Larken Rose. As a result, the Texas Medical Board yanked his license to practice medicine.

And: Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201 (1993).

EDITED: To expand citation on denial of writ of cert. on Clayton case.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby Famspear » Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:43 pm

Dr. Charles Thomas Clayton was a classic example of a tax protester -- someone who refused to accept anything that negated his own position. He had already been convicted and sentenced to probation for a prior Federal tax offense before he got into the tax trouble that landed him in Federal prison.

Here's an excerpt from the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, cited above:

The evidence also showed that before sending his second Form 1040X in April of 2002 to request a refund for the original 1998 tax return, Clayton received at least three more responses to his letters, similarly putting him on notice that his § 861 argument was flawed. In May of 2001, he received two emails from Tax Help stating that the obligation to pay taxes is not optional, the average citizen knows taxes are required, and income includes all income worldwide. In July 2001, the IRS sent him another letter with an attached Notice 2001-40 stating that those who continue to follow the § 861 argument in refusing to file returns may well be subject to criminal penalties. Again, Clayton testified that he disregarded these letters as not addressing the issue he presented.


(emphasis added).

More from the Court of Appeals:

Additionally, by Clayton's own written words, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he willfully filed what he subjectively knew were false amended returns. The evidence revealed that in June 2000, around the time Clayton initiated his research regarding the § 861 argument, he sent an email to a fellow tax protester, Larken Rose, stating that "by God (or whatever) I am going to screw [the IRS] for screwing me." In the same month, Clayton sent Rose another email discussing how to deceive the online public into thinking more than just a few people were advocating the § 861 argument. He ended that email with the line: "Sometimes (most of the time) I am so full of shit it amazes me." In yet another email exchange with Rose, Clayton seemed to be constructing a defense to future litigation when he discussed documenting the "solid stuff" about the § 861 argument, and then stated, "if they were ever stupid enough to bring it to court, that knowing what I do about what can be dealt with in criminal court (which is ANYTHING convinced me of my position) that all this stuff would be brought out formally and kill them dead." Then, in March of 2001, Clayton mentioned taking "proactive steps" to protect himself from indictment in another email to Rose.....


(emphasis added).
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11068
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Chris Tucker is no Wesley Snipes

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:16 am

Seems to have worked real well for both him and Larken.... The old line about people believing what they want to believe would seem to apply.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.


Return to “TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests