Question 1 discussion

[Jamie0331]

Look! Hear is the link!

https://www.scribd.com/document/1136272 ... -for-ORDER

You avoid all the simple and clear cases!

44 Cong.Rec. 4013 (1909): "That the language has been carried along through a series of
decisions of the court, where it was held various provisions of taxation not to impose
direct taxes, and therefore not to be subject to the constitutional provision for
apportionment. It has spoken of them in slightly varying forms of language, as being
with respect to the use or the privilege or the business or the facility or carrying on
business; thus attaching the tax not to the thing, not to the property, but to the
incorporeal, intangible privilege or power or process. These words are designed to
accomplish that; and I think they are taken from the very words of the court in the
Spreckels Case."

Simply and clear!

Conner v. United States. 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg. 1191: 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue
98, Pg. 226. "[2] Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became
effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, it was true under
section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is true under section 61(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income." "[1] ...It
[income] is not synonymous with receipts. Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and
wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed income, not compensation."

Simple and clear!

Dixon v. U.S. [91 AFTR 2d 2003-569 (9th Cir. 2003); For brevity,. the court found that;
1. Counsel for the IRS committed intentional fraud on the court.
2. IRS counsel entered into secret agreements with certain taxpayers in exchange for false
testimony and cooperation in the government's case.
3. IRS attorneys corrupted the adversarial nature of the proceeding, the integrity of the
witnesses, and the ability of the court to judge with impartiality.
4. IRS attorneys violated the rights of taxpayers who agreed to be bound by the U.S. Tax
Court decision.
5. Factual findings of the U.S. Tax Court support the conclusion that fraud plainly
designed to corrupt the legitimacy of the truth-seeking process was perpetrated on the trial court by IRS attorneys McWade and Sims.
6. There can be no questions here ― the actions of IRS attorneys McWade and Sims
amounted to fraud on both the taxpayers and the U.S. Tax Court. The proceeding (in U.S.
Tax Court) was a charade fraught with concealed motives, hidden payments, and false
testimony.
7. The Appeals Court ordered sanctions against the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS
attorneys.

Simple and clear!

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd Cir. 1916). "The statute and the statute alone determines what
is income to be taxed. It taxes only income ‘derived’ from many different sources; one does not
‘derive income’ by rendering services and charging for them."

Again! Simple and clear! You are truly a drip!

Now what? Real cases and really clear outcomes. You will just avoid this like you always do. Try reading the case file. Wait a minute, you wouldn’t be able to understand it because it is not in one or two sentences.

[HardyW]

OK so your first case is from 1909, and proposes that the income tax is necessarily to be apportioned. Isn't that precisely the issue that led to the Sixteenth Amendment to be introduced in Congress in 1909 and adopted by the states up to 1913? So from 1913 onwards that case has no relevance.

The second part has been dealt with on another one of your multiple threads.

[HardyW]

[Suggestion for wserra ...]

Perhaps a forum sub-folder on the pigpen model could be created, and, one by one, those 'discussions' that are judged to have been satisfactorily rebutted could be moved there?

[Chaos]

I think all this is just as simple as if he doesn't want to pay tax, then don't.
no need to argue on a messageboard about it.
he clearly doesn't have any conviction to his arguments to be here hashing nothingness out instead of putting them to practice.

[Famspear]

...Now what? Real cases and really clear outcomes. You will just avoid this like you always do. Try reading the case file. Wait a minute, you wouldn’t be able to understand it because it is not in one or two sentences.

No, YOU need to read the cases. YOU need to learn how to analyze legal materials. YOU need to understand that, often, you cannot glean the holdings from a case by reading "one or two sentences."

YOU need to understand the difference between "holding" and "dicta." You need to understand how to brief a case.

Legal stuff is hard, Jamie. You cannot learn to interpret legal materials by doing what you are doing. You can learn these things only through years of reading the actual texts of thousands upon thousands of actual court decisions (in an American law school, a typical law student will have read several thousand cases over a three year period).

You mentioned "really clear outcomes." Yet, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE OUTCOMES OF THE CASES YOU ARE CITING.

YOU are the one avoiding the very material you are citing.

[Pottapaug1938]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Maehr, Jeffrey Thomas, Pro se, |
|
Petitioner |
|
vs. | Case No: 12-6169
| Praecipe to the Clerk
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, |
|
Respondent |
YOU WILL: Explain to the Justices and to Petitioner why the office of the Clerk made the
assumption that the United States was a party to this action. And, place on the record the Clerk’s
office’s authority to bring an unnamed party into this action, practice of law, causing trespass
upon Petitioner’s rights.
Motion for ORDER to Intervener the United States Government Solicitor General,
Counsel of Record, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Petitioner, which hereby accepts that the obligation of the honorable Solicitor General,
Mr. Donald B. Verrilli, requires the recognition of the contract that exists between all
governments and the People. That contractual obligation is of extreme value now called due and
owing performance.
1. Petitioner, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, perfects his record in the Court with this Motion for
ORDER to intervener the United States Government, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., to clarify;

He posted his whole case file on scribd. They had a herring before he was denied a rehearing. He didn’t have the 300 court fee. You are idiots!

Jamie, if you are going to try to make arguments like this on a forum which is full of experienced lawyers and tax professionals, you ought to at least understand basic legal terminology. A "praecipe" is an order commanding a party in a legal case to do something, or show cause for not doing it; but they can be drafted by either party, and submitted to the court with a request that the court issue it. This is clearly a heaping bowl of word salad, copied and pasted into a request for a praecipe, by someone who has no idea how to study or understand the law. The fact that the praecipe request contains the words "Motion for ORDER" [sic?], without subsequent language granting the motion and issuing the praecipe, is further evidence that this "praecipe" is not an order of the court in question.

[Pottapaug1938]

...Now what? Real cases and really clear outcomes. You will just avoid this like you always do. Try reading the case file. Wait a minute, you wouldn’t be able to understand it because it is not in one or two sentences.

No, YOU need to read the cases. YOU need to learn how to analyze legal materials. YOU need to understand that, often, you cannot glean the holdings from a case by reading "one or two sentences."

YOU need to understand the difference between "holding" and "dicta." You need to understand how to brief a case.

Legal stuff is hard, Jamie. You cannot learn to interpret legal materials by doing what you are doing. You can learn these things only through years of reading the actual texts of thousands upon thousands of actual court decisions (in an American law school, a typical law student will have read several thousand cases over a three year period).

You mentioned "really clear outcomes." Yet, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE OUTCOMES OF THE CASES YOU ARE CITING.

YOU are the one avoiding the very material you are citing.

Indeed, learning to identify the holding, in an appellate case, and distinguish it from (explanatory) dicta, is a skills which every first year law school must acquire within the first days of law school, to avoid embarrassment, and lowering of grades, when the professor calls on them.

[Jamie0331]

Conner v. United States. 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg. 1191: 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue

Edwards 1916 are you a clown?

[KickahaOta]

As long as this thread has been created, some honest advice:

Jamie0331, the vast majority, if not all, of the tax-denier theories underlying the 'documents' you've been posting are addressed in a very useful document, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.

That document is compiled by the Internal Revenue Service (though with seemingly-heavy reliance on a previous document independently created by Dan Evans, The Tax Protestor FAQ. Naturally, this may lead you to instantly reject it as coming from a corrupt source. I would hope that you don't make that mistake, and instead read these documents carefully, for two reasons.

First, if you choose to actually use your arguments against the IRS, these documents describe the counterarguments that will -- not may, will -- be used against you. This should be very useful for your preparations.

Second, each section of these documents includes full citations to the court cases in which the courts have already ruled on these arguments. This is called 'caselaw', and it's hugely important to you. These cases describe exactly why the courts have already held that your arguments are wrong. In the end, if you choose to take the IRS to court (or if you're being taken to court by the IRS), what matters isn't what you (or I) think about the law, or what Quatloos posters (or anti-tax forum posters) think about the law, or what the IRS itself thinks about the law. What matters is what the courts think about the law. If the courts have already held that your view is wrong, it's extremely likely that they will continue to hold that way. At the very least, if you want to convince the courts that they are wrong, you're going to have to make strong, new legal arguments -- arguments that specifically address the reasoning of the courts in these previous cases.

Nothing you've posted so far has done that.

Nothing you've posted so far has come close.

If the IRS is already pursuing you, you may think that you have nothing to lose by raising these arguments anyway. If so, then you are wrong. The courts can fine you thousands of dollars -- even tens of thousands -- for raising these frivolous arguments. And you may be destroying your chances of successfully raising whatever actual, winning arguments may exist for you, and your chances of reaching a settlement or compromise that improves your situation.

Step back and think about things.

[Jamie0331]

Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918). “We must reject in this case...the broad
contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts - everything that comes in -
are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'..."

Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 205 - 206 (1920). "The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them
before the amendment was adopted."

Can you understand before the amendment was adopted?

Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 U.S. 283, 294 (1901). "That decision affirms the great principle that what
cannot be done directly (direct taxation) because of constitutional restriction cannot be
accomplished indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result."

Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 56 S.Ct.
444 (1943); (See also Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 64 S.Ct. 717 (1944); Harper v.
Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966).) The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Hey Snow Flake! What does that say?

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

What is your deal? You are the gate keeper of this site. You spend a lot of time saying nothing that supports anything. I have exposed your nonsense.

This is for you!

Heiner v. Donnan 285, US 312 (1932) and New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964). “The
power to create [false] presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions”

[NYGman]

I would also are that just because you find it written in a case, doesn't mean it is the part that it's the true interpretation out the law. The case often state the losing argument, only to point the flaws. The part that really matters its the holding. The part that clearly states what the court is ruling on. The rest puts it all in context.

[Cpt Banjo]

Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 205 - 206 (1920). "The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them
before the amendment was adopted."

Can you understand before the amendment was adopted?

Given your bottomless pit of ignorance, it will no doubt come as a surprise to you to learn that wages were taxable well before the 16th Amendment was adopted, since Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution grants Congress a broad taxing power including the power to impose an income tax, which it did during the Civil War. The constitutionality of this tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. See Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881).

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Except no court in the history of the country has ever said this. In other words, Sparky, no one has ever escaped taxation by making this brain-dead argument.

[noblepa]

Another thing, Jamie. A couple, actually.

First, go to the original sources, the actual case files from the court in question. Do not rely on some website (even Quatloos) and their interpretation. If you go to court and raise one of these arguments, you can't bolster your argument by saying you found it on a website, except maybe one of the many that publish actual court rulings.

Secondly, if you find a case that seems to support your argument, especially if it is an old case, you must then trace forward to find out if another, later case or an appellate court has overturned that ruling. I believe that lawyers refer to this as "sheperdizing" (pretty sure the spelling is wrong. A ruling that is overturned by an appellate court is worthless to you.

And, as others have said, learn to distinguish between arguments that the parties involved have made and the ruling by the court. The court will often quote one party's arguments, in order to address them and explain why those arguments are irrelevant or wrong.

[Dr. Caligari]

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Hey Snow Flake! What does that say?

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Jamie,
Which court case says that?
And did you read that case or just read a website that says it said that?

[Pottapaug1938]

I would also are that just because you find it written in a case, doesn't mean it is the part that it's the true interpretation out the law. The case often state the losing argument, only to point the flaws. The part that really matters its the holding. The part that clearly states what the court is ruling on. The rest puts it all in context.

He might also be quoting from dissents, for all we know.

[morrand]

Look! Hear is the link!

https://www.scribd.com/document/1136272 ... -for-ORDER

You avoid all the simple and clear cases!

This is a link to Jeffrey Maehr's petition for certiorari. This means nothing more than that Mr. Maehr can operate a word processor. As discussed in this very thread, it was not accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

But thank you for posting that. If it were available through PACER, it'd save the $10.40 in PACER fees it'd cost to download it, but as it's not, it doesn't.

[Jamie0331]

Wow! Are you really going to do this. Those cases are long. It is the same thing as Jack Cole

And the state and federal follow the same laws! Here start reading: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 6/584.html

Why are you so stubborn! You just want to be a shit kicker, I guess. Profits and gains are income! Wages that are derived from Profits and gains are taxable. Come on now! Just read the case file. It is all explained in simple and clearly. Download it from Scibd. It is interesting. You just read the cited parts of cases and not the full case! You have no clue about the cases! Read the cases and stop your insults and nonsense. Stop avoiding the truth!

[Famspear]

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Hey Snow Flake! What does that say?

The freedom and right and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is NOT exempt from taxation by the federal government!

Hey Snow Flake! What does that say?

(See, we can do it, too!)

Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court has actually said:

[ . . .] natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance [ . . . ]

---from Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

And:

Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. case, such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation[ . . . ]

--from Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937) (underlining added).

[Pottapaug1938]

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Hey Snow Flake! What does that say?

The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Jamie,
Which court case says that?
And did you read that case or just read a website that says it said that?

The freedom and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation may well be exempt from taxation by the federal government... but any compensation for the work involved in earning said living IS taxable.

[notorial dissent]

It is quite, painfully, obvious our latest standard bearer of the one true TRUF doesn't know dicta from pleading, from holding, from dissent, or even to have even basic reading skills.