Serving up prodigious doses of reality to the Quatloosian community, hot and fast since 2009!
Let 'em laugh, and tell them to say "Hi!" to Edward:family stupid and all the other people so much smarter than us when they see them....they really showed us, they're so smart they figured out a way to get free room and board from the government!Weston White wrote:
Funny, they say the exact same thing about you. Really, they do I just spoke with them on Skype about your little thread here and they were laughing their asses off at you people! What a w00t! Really!
better idea, STFU. I get annoyed at your posts, you get your only redemption as a human being seeing that we have responded to them...loserWeston smarter than all us White wrote: Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated. I for one am not surprised. However, your contentions are based on a faulty premise; neither have you yet to thoroughly explain how your arguments hold any support in law. You are out of accord with established legal doctrine and statutory construction. One must then only conclude that your arguments are merely your misinterpretations or ill-guided opinions. Needless it is, to say, really now who cares what you think, I sure don’t. Ergo, keep your opinions to yourself.
Famspear wrote:Weston describes himself as:
Serving up prodigious doses of reality to the Quatloosian community, hot and fast since 2009!
Weston, the stuff that is coming out of you is definitely hot when it comes out, and it's coming out fast -- but it ain't pretty, and it definitely ain't "reality."
Says the semi-literate who hasn't decimated anything other than the last shred of his own credibility.Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated.
I don't see your post there.. Oh wait, you're still banned from LH, why?Weston White wrote:Whelp, really no need to further debate this issue anyways, see: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1700
By a court or by a bunch of tax evaders on the internet stroking eachother?Weston White wrote:Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated.
Sure they have.Weston White wrote:I for one am not surprised. However, your contentions are based on a faulty premise; neither have you yet to thoroughly explain how your arguments hold any support in law.
What court cases have you cited that agree with your position on the meaning of "includes"? What do you say about the cases cited in the links above that plainly reject your position on the meaning of "includes"?Weston White wrote:You are out of accord with established legal doctrine and statutory construction. One must then only conclude that your arguments are merely your misinterpretations or ill-guided opinions.
Is this the end of your prolific posting? Good, I didn't want to argue with someone with a black-belt in Bullshido anyway. Your opinion about the law does not matter, it only matters what a court will agree with.Weston White wrote:Needless it is, to say, really now who cares what you think, I sure don’t. Ergo, keep your opinions to yourself.
Sort of like how you know next to nothing about the Federal Reserve or its MO, all the while claiming to hold a "Doctrine". Man you must feel like a ninny! BTW, I was not aware that colleges offered Doctrines for specific events in history. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. So I guess you must have graduated in the same way that Bush Junior graduted, right? Your parents must have been some string-pulling mo'fo's!better idea, STFU. I get annoyed at your posts, you get your only redemption as a human being seeing that we have responded to them...loser
Weston White wrote:Sort of like how you know next to nothing about the Federal Reserve or its MO, all the while claiming to hold a "Doctrine". Man you must feel like a ninny! BTW, I was not aware that colleges offered Doctrines for specific events in history. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. So I guess you must have graduated in the same way that Bush Junior graduted, right? Your parents must have been some string-pulling mo'fo's!better idea, STFU. I get annoyed at your posts, you get your only redemption as a human being seeing that we have responded to them...loser
Your only mistake was assuming that Whitehead knew what he was talking about, cause it is evident he doesn't.Gregg wrote:....so where is the place I made the mistake?
All that and not one citation of any court that agrees with you?Weston White wrote: Ergo, its meaning has not been limited, the term remains expansive; however, only within its defined classes.
Please George Bush is so dumb he has actually resorted to making up his own words to sound smart. I guess he figures if you confuse them, they will just go along with whatever you say. Nobody in the U.S. Military actually remembers him, while of his college classmates remember him as a cheerleading clown and in the eyes of the public he is known as a drunkard with gay closet tendencies. W00t! Oh sure he is uber!Dubya - Harvard MBA (and they do not give those things away), has run a few businesses (not always well, but he made "mad cheddar"), ran the state of Texas, POTUS for 8 years. No tax problems, net worth in the lower to mid-eight figure range.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.Weston White wrote:...
e.g. an existing federal nexus must be present, working privately within a union state has no federal nexus; federal zones are not sovereign, ...
If you are going to cite or rely upon court rulings, you really need to investigate the persons so-called "income", from my readings many of these cases involved persons that actually did earn income as defined in law or as I understand the term to mean. Otherwise are you are doing is whitewashing everything with a tainted brush.RyanMcC wrote:All that and not one citation of any court that agrees with you?Weston White wrote: Ergo, its meaning has not been limited, the term remains expansive; however, only within its defined classes.
Again, why do the court opinions cited on the following pages refute your position? Are they wrong or are you?
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#government
If no court agrees with your position, one must then only conclude that your arguments are merely your misinterpretations or ill-guided opinions.
Nope, the federal government only has jurisdiction over that which was known at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, everything obtained thereafter has to be specifically addressed in a revision of laws, at least until the land is realized as a Union state (that is why the update geographical terms so frequently, or have at any rate, e.g. Alaska, Hawaii, et al). The jurisdiction the federal government has over such locations include a total of 18 powers and they are located within the U.S. Constitution AI,S8,C1-18.Nikki wrote:Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.Weston White wrote:...
e.g. an existing federal nexus must be present, working privately within a union state has no federal nexus; federal zones are not sovereign, ...
Start at the basic beginning: the federal government has jurisdiction over every square inch of each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, possessions, and territories.
The 16th amendment was legally enacted and enables an income tax.
Various laws were enacted which established an income tax imposed on every citizen of the United States and every resident non-citizen.
Nowhere in any of these laws, the Constitution, or anywhere else does anything support your mistaken allegation that a "federal nexus" must be present for taxation.
You are either a complete fool or seriously deluded to expect anyone to accept such a blatany lie without demanding oroof -- which you will not be able to provide.
Instead, you will either change the topic or go away and sulk for a few days only to return to another thread when things have cooled down.
Thanks, my back feels better already. Come on back when you win that court case, y'hear?Weston White wrote:(ROLF)
Yeah, they did actually earn income, what makes you different from them?Weston White wrote: If you are going to cite or rely upon court rulings, you really need to investigate the persons so-called "income", from my readings many of these cases involved persons that actually did earn income as defined in law or as I understand the term to mean.
If you aren't going to cite or rely upon court rulings, all you are doing is whitewashing everything with a tainted brush.Weston White wrote:Otherwise are you are doing is whitewashing everything with a tainted brush.
It is rather dishonest to rely upon the opinion of a convicted felon about what the law is rather than cite a court opinion that agrees with you.Weston White wrote:It is rather dishonest to rely upon these cases in the manner you are. Your smearing your walls in black smudge and do not even realize it.
Nah, instead why don't you tell me why the opinions of a court about what the law is doesn't apply to you. Also tell me how the source or type of income would matter in reference to the below citation:Weston White wrote:If you want to get serious about relying on such cases as your proof to discount established legal doctrine, you should first be willing to do the footwork and find out exactly what type of revenue or income was involved and to what degree and aspect. Eagerly quoting lower case after lower case in itself means little when the source itself is unknown.
“Plaintiff apparently bases his position on a strict interpretation of the statutory language of section 3401(c) which does not on its face include all persons who earn wages from an employer. ... The definition should not be read as exclusive, but rather as indicative of Congress' intent that those persons so designated in section 3401(c) would be subject to the income tax withholding provision in the same manner as all other employees. The definition of "employee", contrary to the interpretation urged by plaintiff, is more properly read to include all those persons with the ‘status of employee under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.’”
Chamberlain v. Krysztof, 617 F.Supp. 491, KTC 1985-137 (N.D.N.Y. 1985) (footnotes omitted).
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#government
Sitting in prison saying "lower court cases do not account for much" probally won't provide much comfort if it comes to that.Weston White wrote:Lower court cases do not account for much, it is one judge making all of the calls, they can be intentionally wrong and never have to admit to it, not until forced to by higher courts.
From my understanding this is what spurred the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and actually began the creation of the Bill of Rights. And never did the Federalist ever attempt to refute the underlined worries of the Anti-Federalists, even while addressing direct taxes within this long debate in their own Federalist Papers, therefore they must have acknowledged this matter as fact as well... As if the Anti-Federalist themselves would not have been just as purvey on such issues as the Federalists anyways. And if you base this as your reasoning you are nothing more than a simpleton that is desperate for an excuse, and any excuse will serve you fine.The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents
December 12, 1787
After the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the new constitution on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, twenty-one members of the minority signed a dissenting address that ap peared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. The address was subsequently reprinted, often in Pennsylvania and other states, becoming in some way a semi-official statement of anti-federalist objections to the new Constitution. The author of the address was probably the same as the author of "Centinel," Samuel Bryan; at least there are notable similarities between the two works, and Bryan later claimed authorship in letters to Jefferson and to Albert Gallatin.
…
We have before considered internal taxation, as it would effect the destruction of the state governments, and produce one consolidated government. We will now consider that subject as it affects the personal concerns of the people.
The power of direct taxation applies to every individual, as congress, under this government, is expressly vested with the authority of laying a capitation or poll tax upon every person to any amount. This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. Some of those who were in the late general convention from this state have long laboured to introduce a poll-tax among us.
The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual, as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations, etc. in any amount, and every object of internal taxation is of that nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative except to pay the tax, or let their property be taken, for all resistance will be in vain. The standing army and select militia would enforce the collection.
… A most in-formative statement in regard to the early history of the income-tax law was recently written by Mr. F. Morse Hub-bard, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University, and a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department. This compilation of information concerning our in-come-tax law is so well written that I am making it a part of my statement and the record:
1. THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND IN-COME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT.
…
The income on which the tax was based was defined as Income from all sources, “whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interests, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vo-cation”” (act of 1864, see. 116). Thus in-vestment income, as well as other kinds of income, was included in the basis for measur-ing the tax.
…
- Congressional Record-House 1943 [Page 2579]
[much more damning information is found on page 2580, though it is too much to type, I will have to scan it and convert it.]