losthorizons' Weston White - talking himself into prison?

[Demosthenes]

Looks like Billie is doing ok for himself. He's got four boats and markets fairly aggressively.

http://www.lobstabait.com/

[Prof]

Looks like Billie is doing ok for himself. He's got four boats and markets fairly aggressively.

http://www.lobstabait.com/

Herself? The spelling, Billie, indicates a woman's name, in my limited experience.

[Nikki]

I wonder how much the business will bring at auction to cover the tax debts?

[Demosthenes]

Billie's photo:

[webhick]

Billie's photo:

She's butch.

[wserra]

Me, I'd rather see both sides and make up my own mind.

Yeah, but that's because you're a brainwashed sheeple.

[iplawyer]

From the website:

With the recent changes/revisions in the herring fishery, we are very concerned for the lobster fishery of New England and are focusing our efforts to supply bait to the much needed lobster fishermen of New England.

I don't get it. Are lobster fishermen really that much needed? Is he really trying to say "much needed bait?" Billie is a moron.

[webhick]

Me, I'd rather see both sides and make up my own mind.

Yeah, but that's because you're a brainwashed sheeple.

Well, at least I'm not lazy...like you lawyers

[Demosthenes]

You guys ever poke around Weston's website?

[Prof]

You guys ever poke around Weston's website?

He has a web site?

Why would I want to poke around? His posting on LH are inane; I rarely do more than glance at those.

[Demosthenes]

Weston's site and description:

If you are a conspiracy or coincidence theorist and are looking to become proactive within your community based upon your knowledge and concerns; or if you are just wanting to learn how the world around you really works, (namely do to your own growing intuitiveness and suspicions); or if you are undecided and are wanting to know more about critical topics such as public education, eugenics, federal conspiracy & fraud, globalism, and industrial complexes. Then you are cordially invited to become a Defend Independence forum member at: http://www.defendindependence.org/Forum/.

Are you jaded by the ongoing charade of hype, spin, and lies pounced out daily by the mainstream "establishment" media, the endless reality television and cable shows, and the lack of positive action and representation by your paid government officials.

Finally, a place that you can meet other local people who are as brave as you and proudly dawn their tin foil with pride? and yes also share an interest in conspiracies and coincidences.
http://www.defendindependence.org/ - Enlightening America One Member at a Time

* Home to the Tyrannical Response Team (TRT) and OPERATION INDEPENDENT FREEDOM (TEAMCIC:OIF)

[Prof]

Weston's site and description:

If you are a conspiracy or coincidence theorist and are looking to become proactive within your community based upon your knowledge and concerns; or if you are just wanting to learn how the world around you really works, (namely do to your own growing intuitiveness and suspicions); or if you are undecided and are wanting to know more about critical topics such as public education, eugenics, federal conspiracy & fraud, globalism, and industrial complexes. Then you are cordially invited to become a Defend Independence forum member at: http://www.defendindependence.org/Forum/.

Are you jaded by the ongoing charade of hype, spin, and lies pounced out daily by the mainstream "establishment" media, the endless reality television and cable shows, and the lack of positive action and representation by your paid government officials.

Finally, a place that you can meet other local people who are as brave as you and proudly dawn their tin foil with pride? and yes also share an interest in conspiracies and coincidences.
http://www.defendindependence.org/ - Enlightening America One Member at a Time

* Home to the Tyrannical Response Team (TRT) and OPERATION INDEPENDENT FREEDOM (TEAMCIC:OIF)

I went there just now. What a little nest of nuggets. Did you find any indication that anyone else - other than you and me --has ever been there?

[Demosthenes]

I went there just now. What a little nest of nuggets. Did you find any indication that anyone else - other than you and me --has ever been there?

Not really. His forum has 590 posts, made almost exclusively by Weston himself.

[grixit]

Well everyone needs a hobby.

[Gregg]

Weston White has now responded -- over at losthorizons of course, not here in Quatloos -- with this {and here, Quatloos regulars are advised to secure all beverages.....}

[ . . . ] that the atmosphere of LH is in many ways comparable to that of an academic library, so as to state that one does not go to a library to debate, they [sic] go there to study, to learn, to research, which is what practitioners of CtC do.

in the sense that there are a lot of strange activities going on in the stacks

oh my memories of Widener Library (and of the legends of what goes on in the stacks there, which sadly never happened to me)

[ASITStands]

I went there just now. What a little nest of nuggets. Did you find any indication that anyone else - other than you and me --has ever been there?

Not really. His forum has 590 posts, made almost exclusively by Weston himself.

The guy is definitely "full of himself!" He's the kind that loves to hear himself talk.

I was interested in a comment discussed earlier:

Furthermore, they [the Quatloos regulars] do not seem to understand that debating with somebody or even worse a group of somebodies whom [sic] will never ever agree with any of the points you make, even if they are supported in both the Annotated Constitution and SCOTUS rulings.

Where Weston mentions the Annotated Constitution, "It S P E L L S out what incomes are!"

Yeah. Sure, Weston. Because the annotation has the subheadings:

Corporate Dividends: When Taxable.
Corporate Earnings: When Taxable.
Gains: When Taxable.
Income from Illicit Transactions.

Because the annotation has the subheadings, Weston concludes these are the only definitions of the word "income!" Brilliant legal work there, fellow.

You might start by understanding an "annotation:"

Main Entry:
an·no·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌa-nə-ˈtā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century

1 : a note added by way of comment or explanation
2 : the act of annotating

Then read the authorship page of the Cornell website:

This edition is a hypertext interpretation of the CRS text. It links to Supreme Court opinions, the U.S. Code, and the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as enhancing navigation through linked footnotes and tables of contents.

Now take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court Center on Justia.us:

Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America

The Constitution of the United States of America including analysis and interpretation of the Constitution with annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States through June 29, 2004. Annotations include direct Web links to cited cases.

You see, Weston, that's what an Annotated Constitution does. It cites cases decided by the Supreme Court that directly analyze and interpret the particular section of the Constitution.

Now look at your link:

Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”; in the following array of factual situations it [p.1955] subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

The subheadings describe those particular matters of taxation - "array of factual situations" - that resulted in "extended controversy." In other words, the subheadings only exist to describe the specific areas of controversy that required the attention of the Court.

The annotations describe controversies not the only definitions of the word "income."

Nothing in the subheadings support the conclusion these are the only definitions of the word "income," and for that matter, what should we do with the words in the first subheading?

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a “direct tax” which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.

During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames, [p.1954] Knowlton v. Moore, and Patton v. Brady, the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale.

Because of such endeavors the Court thus found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise “measured by income” on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock case. Indeed, in its initial appraisal of the Amendment it classified income taxes as being inherently “indirect.” “[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.” “[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.”

Read the emboldened text very carefully. And, pay attention to the word "inherently."

Reading Pollock, you understand that the Court found it perfectly legitimate to tax the incomes or gains of employments, trades, professions, in fact, all types of income from whatever source derived, excepting income produced by the ownership of property.

Things such as rent, interest on bonds and insurance premiums. The Pollock Court only declared unconstitutional ten sections of the income tax act of 1894 dealing with property.

The tax imposed by sections 27-37, inclusive, of the act of August 28, 1894, 28 Stat. 553-560, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution, and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied *637 therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole.

So, you see, contrary to your conclusion, even the passage from which you cite supports the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment lays a tax on incomes and gains from whatever source derived, and nothing is to be excluded by a reading of subheadings. Sorry.

In the event you decide not to accept this or other common sense readings, just remember there's absolutely no case law to support the conclusions you so vociferously support.

[ASITStands]

Wow! I've been debunked by the 'master' himself. I'm honored.

Shouldn't that rate some sort of Quatloosian honor? Sort of like having been banned from Lost Horizons by Peter Eric Hendrickson? In the same league as 'Famspear' or 'Quixote?'

We've been dissed by a master! He's found us out. We should be afraid, very afraid.

This is the same fellow that won't post on Quatloos to discuss the issues openly. He'd rather sit back at a competing web forum and throw rocks at anyone who comments on his posts.

Someone suggested we call him something other than 'chicken.' Maybe some combination of being 'wimpy' and a very private part of the female anatomy [my apologies, ladies].

It's really just the fear of being shown the error of his arguments and having to distinguish the plethora of case law against his position. He's unlike other posters from Lost Horizons who've come here and exhibited more honesty and courage than Weston can muster.

And, it's the fear of having to read and write with some coherence.

[Famspear]

I particularly like this comment from Legal Scholar Weston White:

I am just simply am in awe that this person is actually attempting to discount the Annotated Constitution. What gull they have, seriously!

(bolding added).

Seriously, I had no idea that Weston would bring ornithology into this. Had I thought about it, I would have thought condor, or penguin, or maybe woodpecker. Never gull.

I am just simply in awe of this Legal Scholar who is actually attempting to write in proper English, and failing almost every time.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Seriously, I had no idea that Weston would bring ornithology into this. Had I thought about it, I would have thought condor, or penguin, or maybe woodpecker. Never gull.

I am just simply in awe of this Legal Scholar who is actually attempting to write in proper English, and failing almost every time.

You forgot the Dodo.

[Nikki]

Weston is clearly posting under an alias at Crackheads.

Based on his refusal to enter into uncensored debate, I did some research into his true identity.

Voila: Weston