Happy father's day

[Gregg]

Yes, you can challenge it, and they will get the documents that show a check was issued, to you, deposited in a bank account in your name or cashed with your signature, and that's all the proof they need.

Ahh, but if the check was redeemed in "lawful money" pursuant to Title 12 § 411 then it was public money, not private credit of the Federal Reserve. I am not in contract with the Feds; there is no equity relationship, no income(special legal term).

You don't need a so called equity relationship you dooofus. Make up all the gobbledygoop legal sounding terms you want, you cashed the check, that was the taxable event.

As I said, you're too stupid to get that. Taking tax advice from someone going to prison for tax crimes, and taking what the hell you want to call it advice about how to endorse a check to make it tax free from a homeless mental patient who assaults his mother and is the laughing stock not only of this site but a good portion of the legal system in the whole state of Colorado, real good strategies there, idiot.

[Harvester]

Ah, you ignorant sheeple, how long must I be with you?
Whitey, I apologize for editing your post.

__________________________________________________________
"To see what is in front of one's nose requires constant effort." ~ George Orwell

[Dr. Caligari]

no income(special legal term)

Harvey,
What is the "special legal" definition of the word "income"? Where is this definition written down-- a statute? a court case?

[Nikki]

Harvester, despite his moderated status, has -- in a single post -- violated at least two rules of this forum.

He deserves a time-out -- perhaps two weeks -- to reflect.

[Famspear]

Ah, you ignorant sheeple, how long must I be with you?

Don't kid yourself, kid. You're not here imparting any divine wisdom -- or any kind of wisdom at all.

And we're not "sheeple." You, on the other hand, are very gullible and very impressionable, as can be seen from your repetitive copying and pasting of links to wackadoo web sites over these months. Harvester, you also make astoundingly silly statements and, when challenged on them, you have yet to answer in a substantive way. Your posts are long on wacky conclusions and bereft of real, logical, formal legal analysis. You don't back up what you write.

[Dr. Caligari]

He deserves a time-out -- perhaps two weeks -- to reflect.

First give him some time to answer my question. (I doubt he will, because any answer will demonstrate the falsity of his position, but I don't want to give him the excuse that we prevented him from answering by suspending him.)

[LOBO]

LOBO, if your boys are so much better at catching 'non-filers' then WHERE ARE THEY? C'mon revenue scammers, am I to wait a lifetime?

LOL, oh you'll find out, you'll find out. Don't worry though, it will be a few months before notices asking for your 2009 return will show up in your mailbox.

[Pottapaug1938]

Ah, you ignorant sheeple, how long must I be with you?
Whitey, I apologize for editing your post.

How do you know that I'm white, Moron?

__________________________________________________________
"To see what is in front of one's nose requires constant effort." ~ George Orwell

[Pottapaug1938]

He deserves a time-out -- perhaps two weeks -- to reflect.

First give him some time to answer my question. (I doubt he will, because any answer will demonstrate the falsity of his position, but I don't want to give him the excuse that we prevented him from answering by suspending him.)

Don't hold your breath waiting -- he's too gutless to give you a straight answer. I'm not one for advocating "time-outs" or bannings from Quatloos; but I am afraid that Harvester is fast getting me to change my mind. In all his posts, he has yet to say anything worthwhile, except by accident; and as you all know he is starting to play dirty by deliberately altering quotes to make them more obnoxious.

[Harvester]

Harvey,
What is the "special legal" definition of the word "income"? Where is this definition written down-- a statute? a court case?

Ah, excellent question Herr Dr.
At first, one might look to the Internal Revenue Code for an answer. But the nearest we get to an answer is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod ... -000-.html

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

But really, this is just a definition of 'gross income' not 'income' (can't logically use the term defined in the very definition now can we?). And the list of 15 items are not 'gross income' unless they are first 'income.' (If it helps, substitute the term 'income' with 'Quatloos.' Gross Quatloos means all Quatloos from whatever source derived, including ....). So 'income' is not defined here, or, in the entire Internal Revenue Code.
"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." US v. Ballard, 535 400 404 8th Circuit (1976). So what we have here in the IRC is intentional deception - it's hoped the reader will be taken in and conclude all 15 items are income(slt), that this is a definition of income(slt) - but it's not.

So where else can we look. The statutes? Where do the statutes come from? They come from Congress in the form of Revenue Acts, the first of which was enacted in 1861, and then repealed/replaced with the Revenue Act of 1862. However these Acts are not very straightforward either with their "gains, profit and income derived from..." language. The definition must be teased out. A handy distillation can be found here.

Of course, court dicta and rulings also shed some light on the definition of income . . .

[Famspear]

Harvey,
What is the "special legal" definition of the word "income"? Where is this definition written down-- a statute? a court case?

Ah, excellent question Herr Dr.
At first, one might look to the Internal Revenue Code for an answer. But the nearest we get to an answer is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod ... -000-.html

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

But really, this is just a definition of 'gross income' not 'income' (can't logically use the term defined in the very definition now can we?). And the list of 15 items are not 'gross income' unless they are first 'income.' (If it helps, substitute the term 'income' with 'Quatloos.' Gross Quatloos means all Quatloos from whatever source derived, including ....). So 'income' is not defined here, or, in the entire Internal Revenue Code.
"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." US v. Ballard, 535 400 404 8th Circuit (1976). So what we have here in the IRC is intentional deception - it's hoped the reader will be taken in and conclude all 15 items are income(slt), that this is a definition of income(slt) - but it's not.

So where else can we look. The statutes? Where do the statutes come from? They come from Congress in the form of Revenue Acts, the first of which was enacted in 1861, and then repealed/replaced with the Revenue Act of 1862. However these Acts are not very straightforward either with their "gains, profit and income derived from..." language. The definition must be teased out. A handy distillation can be found here.

Of course, court dicta and rulings also shed some light on the definition of income . . .

That's a long-winded non-answer, culminating in a link to -- surprise! -- more nonsense from Peter Hendrickson. No, none of the statutes you mention (and none of the statutes Hendrickson mentions in the linked material) limit the term "income" in the way you would like it to be limited.

Stated another way: income includes, but is not limited to, your private sector earnings -- regardless of whether those earnings were realized in an activity involving a federal privilege or not. And every time Hendrickson or one of his followers has tried argue Hendrickson's "special" definition of income, Hendrickson and His Heroes have lost. They can't find any constitutional provision or statute or court decision supporting them.

And that's because there is none.

[Harvester]

Well, I was just getting warmed up. With all due respect Lord Famspire, you are wrong. Characterizing our revelations as "nonsense" doesn't make them so. There's plenty to support our side. But your agenda here is clear to all. You have no interest in the truth, and steer clear of the history of taxation in America. Since you're quite content to pay the Queen's tribute every April 15th, and, lead your countrymen into the same bondage, I will leave you to it. Enjoy paying taxes you don't owe!

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/first_chapter.php

[The Operative]

Well, I was just getting warmed up.

Copying and pasting more drivel from your soon to be imprisoned guru.

With all due respect Lord Famspire, you are wrong.

No, he is not. You are.

Characterizing our revelations as "nonsense" doesn't make them so.

Those are not "revelations". They are delusional rantings of someone who doesn't want to pay taxes and tries to contort the statutes to fit his own self-interest. BTW, when the courts say that the arguments are without merit and frivolous, that means the arguments are nonsense.

There's plenty to support our side.

There is not plenty to support your side, nothing supports your side.

But your agenda here is clear to all.

If you mean that our agenda is to point out the utter stupidity of arguments similar to Hendrickson's, then you are right that our agenda is clear to all. The only people who think we are wrong or have some ulterior motive are delusional morons.

You have no interest in the truth,...

You would not know truth if it slapped you in the face.

and steer clear of the history of taxation in America.

I guarantee that most posters here know more about history of taxation in America and history in general than any constipational "scholar".

Since you're quite content to pay the Queen's tribute every April 15th, and, lead your countrymen into the same bondage, I will leave you to it. Enjoy paying taxes you don't owe!

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/first_chapter.php

Blah, blah, blah. More nonsense and it is nonsense. It is not because I say so, it is because the courts say so.

[LDE]

About that refund check: The signature block says LOST. What's that about? Anybody who's more familiar with these checks know?

[Nikki]

Definition of 'income':

What Harv and all others of his ilk (Isn't it lovely how, especially in this case, 'ilk' is SO close to 'ick') either don't know or refuse to accept is:

In statutes, the absence of a specific definition of a term means that the definition defaults to the common American version of English definition.

Thus, there is no need for the term 'income' to be defined in 26USC because the intent is for the common usage definition to apply.

Quite often, court opinions and decisions will contain references to specific entries in commonly-used dictionaries to support their interpretation of a word.

However, the compliance-challenged consistently either (1) refuse to accept the entire concept of general usage or (2) proudly cite either a definition such as "2. Arch. An influx" or "ME: enhance, arrival" and base their arguments on that.

Perhaps, someday, they will learn to read and then apply that new-found skill to laws and court decisions without relying on the interpretations of a twice-convicted felon..

[Duke2Earl]

I see no reason to ban Harvey the troll. He is the best possible advertisement for the insanity of his kind. His ravings would convince anyone even partly sane of his inability to even read a simple English sentence let alone his total incompetence manage his own life or advise others. If he and his ravings are a typical example of his breed of so-called freedom fighters then our government from the level of school crossing guard up has absolutely nothing to fear. If he is any example at all, these "freedom fighters" are unable to exhibit enough competence to walk, let alone chew gum. They are more of a danger to themselves than to anyone else. In short, someone has to serve as an example of how badly wrong it can all go. In an earlier, less compassionate age (which ironically these types think they want to go back to), he would have simply been declared insane and locked away.

I just think we feed his trolling much too much. Simple denial and derision should suffice.

[Pottapaug1938]

I see no reason to ban Harvey the troll. He is the best possible advertisement for the insanity of his kind. His ravings would convince anyone even partly sane of his inability to even read a simple English sentence let alone his total incompetence manage his own life or advise others. If he and his ravings are a typical example of his breed of so-called freedom fighters then our government from the level of school crossing guard up has absolutely nothing to fear. If he is any example at all, these "freedom fighters" are unable to exhibit enough competence to walk, let alone chew gum. They are more of a danger to themselves than to anyone else. In short, someone has to serve as an example of how badly wrong it can all go. In an earlier, less compassionate age (which ironically these types think they want to go back to), he would have simply been declared insane and locked away.

I just think we feed his trolling much too much. Simple denial and derision should suffice.

If it were not for the stunt he pulled in altering my quote, and then assuming that my ethnicity drove my response, I might agree with that; but he has crossed a dangerous line once, and I would hardly be shocked to see him do it again.

[Gregg]

A little deductive reasoning has me thinking Harvester is lying about his IRA distribution also. He mentions that he got it all ouot, over several years and by not taking enough in any year to cross the minimum threshhold he avoided any "taxable income" which implies that for more than one year at the very least, he did not file any return at all, a thing he has himself supported by stating he is now a non-filer.

But....he also supplies a link to his "CTC Victory Check" which is for a return filed for tax year ending 12/2008, which means he has at the very most only been a non-filer for 1 year and since he only really became active among the crackheads since July 22nd of 2009 (my goodness has it been less than a year since we found this dipstick?) I'm also inclined to think the village idiot read Pete's book early in 2009, filed one return with it and did get his refund. He may or may not be aware that his return is somewhere in the cycle that ends with him paying it back with interest, but if he doesn't know yet he will soon. I am also inclined to believe Harvester has just taken one distribution from his IRA (in a post at LH he says that himself) and that he was at one time kind of worried about the 1099 he got for that one. I also think that the account he did have was from a previous employer but that's just my own thought.
Also, seeing as his Victory Refund was for all of $5700, he's not exactly a high income client and nothing he has shown in his posts makes me think he's the kind of guy who would divert current reward for some vague future security. (or he means for taxpayers or others to support him in his old age, one way or another).

Bottom line, much to my non-surprise, I am pretty sure Harvester is lying to us about the whole thing.

[Nikki]

Time-outs: There have been a few, very few, instances in the past where the forum administrators have seen fit to lock someone's account from any new posts for a few weeks.

Harvester has crossed the line. Perhaps he gets to ride this once, but ONE more should warrant some consequence. He's already on moderated status, so the next step is a time out.

[Cathulhu]

Gotta think that his racist alteration and obsession with what color our Pottapaug might be is an indicator of the pathetic brain behind the delusional, snide postings.

Sorry he's such a d*ck, Pottapaug. It ain't easy being green, is it?