CtC loser's web page
CtC loser's web page
Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax
-
- Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am
Re: CtC loser's web page
Interesting how they ripped the design from the Quatloos one. In fact, it could easily be confused.Nikki wrote:Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax
I guess LHers have to resort to deception to make people believe them.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
-
- Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
- Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.
Re: CtC loser's web page
It goes way beyond that. They were too lazy to copy the graphic files to their server and to update the img tags, so all the img tags point to the graphic files on quatloos. They even copied the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I guess they believe if they include the copyright on their copied page that they aren't violating the copyright.webhick wrote:Interesting how they ripped the design from the Quatloos one. In fact, it could easily be confused.Nikki wrote:Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax
I guess LHers have to resort to deception to make people believe them.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
-
- Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am
Re: CtC loser's web page
And The Operative tacks on "stealing bandwidth" to the list of offenses. It's like they're too stupid to realize that this site is filled with lawyers.The Operative wrote:It goes way beyond that. They were too lazy to copy the graphic files to their server and to update the img tags, so all the img tags point to the graphic files on quatloos. They even copied the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I guess they believe if they include the copyright on their copied page that they aren't violating the copyright.webhick wrote:Interesting how they ripped the design from the Quatloos one. In fact, it could easily be confused.Nikki wrote:Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax
I guess LHers have to resort to deception to make people believe them.
Next up, they'll start forging the main site as well. Good luck to them when the hammer falls.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
-
- Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am
Re: CtC loser's web page
The "argument" is summarized by the author of that page as:
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) :
But if the Constitution is the supreme law of our nation, and the Constitution grants judicial power to the Supreme Court; why is the "argument" directly contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court that the income tax is NOT a direct tax.Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) :
For those all too familiar with this topic, please excuse the need to repeat this again.Without stating the minor differences, it may be said with substantial accuracy that the divergent reasoning was this: On the one hand, that the tax was not in the class of direct taxes requiring apportionment, because it was not levied directly on property because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost; and on the other, that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership. Putting out of view the difference of reasoning which led to the concurrent conclusion in the Hylton Case, it is undoubted that it came to pass in legislative practice that the line of demarcation between the two great classes of direct taxes on the one hand and excises, duties, and imposts on the other, which was exemplified by the ruling in that case, was accepted and acted upon. In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the text writers.<cites omitted>
Upon the lapsing of a considerable period after the repeal of the income tax laws referred to, in 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 509, chap. 349], an act was passed laying a tax on incomes from all classes of property and other sources of revenue which was not apportioned, and which therefore was of course assumed to come within the classification of excises, duties, and imposts which were subject to the rule of uniformity, but not to the rule of apportionment. The constitutional validity of this law was challenged on the ground that it did not fall within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, but was direct in the constitutional sense, and was therefore void for want of apportionment, and that question came to this court and was passed upon in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , <cites omitted> The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the all embracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law to be unconstitutional in substance for these reasons: Concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent. As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them. Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' -a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress. bold added
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
-
- Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
- Posts: 4287
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am
Re: CtC loser's web page
Still, the invitation to discuss the issues points here, so maybe in the long run it'll help get some people off the koolaide.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
-
- Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Yuba City, CA
Re: CtC loser's web page
Isn't that just pathetically desperate.
At least they're honest about their plagarism:
At least none that I'm aware of.
At least they're honest about their plagarism:
What strikes me as odd is that in the time Quatloos has been up no one from the tax protestor movement has made any serious attempts to hack this site.The purpose of this web page is simple: This page was created to be a fun and challenging way to refute the myriad of misconceptions spread through the webpage located here and was designed to represent to you the facts about the laws that makes the average American citizen or resident not liable for the federal income tax. So, for all you reality deniers, scam artists, and so called "tax professionals" or for just those trying to find out the truth, here it is:
At least none that I'm aware of.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
-
- Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm
Re: CtC loser's web page
Could someone teach him the proper usage of the "who" and "whom"?
A lesson in sentence fragments might be good also:
A lesson in sentence fragments might be good also:
How about a run-on sentence:This group ever more growing and vigilant with each passing year, serving to enlarge and strengthen the Tax Honesty Movement as a whole.
And, for me, the clincher:A small percentage of the individuals existing within this group are factually cognizant of the realization concerning the truth about federal taxation directly pertains to current perceptions and misunderstandings based in Fundamental Law and that they as well as other have been taken advantage of by way of some combination involving their government and greedy self-serving professionals within the occupational tax community, it is because of this that individuals within this group feel a true motivation, a true desire to do something spectacular and worthy to create a better Nation; nay, a better world, for both the future of the global environment, their families, and yours.
Clearly, Weston is not a victim.Many individuals within this group have graduated from higher education and further still many more are victims of public education
Re: CtC loser's web page
Wouldn't it be interesting if someone made some slight modifications to THIS site to move the various design elements to a different location and replace the originals (which would then be picked up by the LoserHead) with something like "I'm an effing moron" or "This was posted from <insert favorite fedreal prison name>" or some appropriate graphic image such as a double-wide being repossessed?
Of course, no one here has the technical expertise or innate evil nature to do anything like that -- without letting the rest of us know when it's available for viewing.
Of course, no one here has the technical expertise or innate evil nature to do anything like that -- without letting the rest of us know when it's available for viewing.
-
- Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am
Re: CtC loser's web page
With a mind like that, my prayers go out to your spouse (or similarly significant other) !Nikki wrote:Wouldn't it be interesting if ...
-
- 17th Viscount du Voolooh
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm
Re: CtC loser's web page
Two observations:
And, there's a reason why Weston's not a Designated Warrior.
This latest project of his is probably one example why's he's not trusted by the Admin.
MAJO0R EDIT: Weston caught me! "Might" put the fear of God in Weston.
I guess I'm just too "delusional" to catch such things. Oh, well.
Someone ought to enforce the copyright. Mike put the fear of God in Weston.The Operative wrote:I guess they believe if they include the copyright on their copied page that they aren't violating the copyright.
And, there's a reason why Weston's not a Designated Warrior.
This latest project of his is probably one example why's he's not trusted by the Admin.
MAJO0R EDIT: Weston caught me! "Might" put the fear of God in Weston.
I guess I'm just too "delusional" to catch such things. Oh, well.
Last edited by ASITStands on Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm
Re: CtC loser's web page
FWIW, here's the domain registration data:
Registrant Name:Weston White
Registrant Organization:TEAMCIC:OIF
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 1268
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Fresno
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:93715
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5599420303
-
- Judge for the District of Quatloosia
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
- Location: West of the Pecos
Re: CtC loser's web page
Wow. I thought the Dems were in power.Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
-
- Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
- Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Re: CtC loser's web page
Just for now, we will rise again!!Judge Roy Bean wrote:Wow. I thought the Dems were in power.Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.
btw - i just love that they always put "tax professional" in quotes and then add "so called". Just like those so called "medical professionals". ah, the humor of observing the dim-witted.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
-
- 17th Viscount du Voolooh
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm
Re: CtC loser's web page
I'd think an appropriate letter to the registrant would do the trick.Dezcad wrote:FWIW, here's the domain registration data:Registrant Name:Weston White
Registrant Organization:TEAMCIC:OIF
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 1268
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Fresno
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:93715
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5599420303
I noticed there's a link to the Quatloos Forum at the bottom for "further discussion."
Wonder if that's in preparation of Lost Horizons going dark? Or, is it our delusional ways?
Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!
-
- Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am
Re: CtC loser's web page
It's funny because when I read Weston's work I usually picture him as a teenager jacked up on energy drinks. Does the "chicken" tactic still work on teenagers?ASITStands wrote:Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
-
- Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Yuba City, CA
Re: CtC loser's web page
Only if you get three or four kids in his age group calling him the same thing.webhick wrote:It's funny because when I read Weston's work I usually picture him as a teenager jacked up on energy drinks. Does the "chicken" tactic still work on teenagers?ASITStands wrote:Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!
Peer pressure is a bitch.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
-
- Further Moderator
- Posts: 7521
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
- Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith
Re: CtC loser's web page
Maybe we have to use the right term. The term "chicken" may be seen as too "fiftyish" by the current generation. I know that "double-dog dare ya" was effective several years ago, but I haven't kept up; it may be out of fashion as well.webhick wrote:It's funny because when I read Weston's work I usually picture him as a teenager jacked up on energy drinks. Does the "chicken" tactic still work on teenagers?ASITStands wrote:Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Re: CtC loser's web page
That page may be strange to us, but I think it is more directed to Bizarro World, where it would be factually and legally correct.
Oh, and for kids these days, instead of chicken, you may need to use a slang term for a part of the female anatomy.
Oh, and for kids these days, instead of chicken, you may need to use a slang term for a part of the female anatomy.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: CtC loser's web page
I was updating my Tax Protester FAQ and decided to check some of Weston White's citations, and found an error I'd not seen before. He's got the traditional "quote" from Lucas v. Earl that is actually a quote from the losing argument, as well as a new screw-up I hadn't seen before:
The taxpayer in Burk-Waggoner was challenging the application of a corporate income tax to an unincorporated association. The Supreme Court first confirmed the application of the statute, then addressed the constitutionality of taxing the association itself for income that under state law was owned by the members of the association:
And, of course, neither the Murphy opinions nor the Burk-Waggoner opinion have anything to do with whether wages and salaries are incomes subject to tax.
Which is supposed to be from Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 114 (1925), but isn't."The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as 'incomes' every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.’"
The taxpayer in Burk-Waggoner was challenging the application of a corporate income tax to an unincorporated association. The Supreme Court first confirmed the application of the statute, then addressed the constitutionality of taxing the association itself for income that under state law was owned by the members of the association:
The first part of WW's quotation ("The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as 'incomes' every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive") is not from the Supreme Court, but from the DC Circuit's first opinion in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 8/22/2006), vacated on rehearing, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 7/3/2007), in which it held that taxing compensation for non-physical injuries was unconstitutional. What WW is quoting therefore is not from the Supreme Court, but from a circuit court opinion that included a brief quotation from the Burk-Waggoner opinion.Supreme Court wrote:The claim that the Act, if so construed, violates the Constitution is also unsound. It is true that Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact. But the thing to which the tax was here applied is confessedly income earned in the name of the association. It is true that Congress cannot convert into a corporation an organization which by the law of its state is deemed to be a partnership. But nothing in the Constitution precludes Congress from taxing as a corporation an association which, although unincorporated, transacts its business as if it were incorporated.
And, of course, neither the Murphy opinions nor the Burk-Waggoner opinion have anything to do with whether wages and salaries are incomes subject to tax.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.