Questions, Title 26, Notice of Levy, No Law

[Famspear]

Dear "inquirer": Part of your problem is reading comprehension. Like almost everyone else who "believes" frivolous theories about the federal income tax, you "read" one thing but you "see" something else. You don't realize that what you "see" is not really there in front of you.

You "read" the phrase "non-positive law" but you believe you "see" the phrase "not the law." So, when you see a reference to "title 26" as being "non-positive law," your mind "sees" it as "title 26 is not the law."

Saying something is "non-positive law" is not the same as saying that it is "not the law." TITLE 26 IS THE LAW.

Most lawyers and CPAs who study the Internal Revenue Code are physically looking at a non-positive law version of the statute. Most lawyers and CPAs use either on line, internet versions of the Code (which by definition cannot be the actual, physical paper positive law United States Statutes at Large) or paper versions published by West Publishing, by CCH, or by some other commercial publisher (and by definition none of those commercial versions can be the actual, physical paper positive law United States Statutes at Large, either). IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE.

When studying a federal statute, it makes no difference whether you are looking at the actual, physical paper document signed into law by the President (and kept in a safe place at the National Archives) or the positive law version, the paper version in the United States Statutes at Large, or a PDF version of the Statutes at Large found on the internet as provided by the U.S. Government Printing Office, or the "non-positive law" version or a version published by a commercial law book publisher like West or CCH. There are almost no typographical errors when you compare all these versions to the actual, physical paper signed by the President. Using an "unofficial" version of a statute has absolutely no legal effect on validity.

The same is true of court decisions. THE VAST MAJORITY OF TEXTS OF COURT DECISIONS USED BY LAWYERS AND JUDGES are published by private companies, not by the government.

Wake up, grasshopper.

[Kestrel]

There is a reward, now up to $300,000, I believe, for anyone proving that ordinary Americans are liable for the income tax. Why haven't any of you bright folks claimed it? crap, I would be posting that on the site and throwing it in the face of anyone who questioned the tax. But, none of you have done so; so, I wonder, are you afraid to seriously look?

The prize has never been claimed because it's not as you represent, to prove a fact, or even to make a reasonable case for it in front of an impartial judge or panel of citizens.

The prize is to prove that fact to the satisfaction of the very anti-tax biased challenger, who has already decided that there is no way anyone will ever convince him. So it goes unclaimed to this day. The prize could have been to prove that grass is green in the spring, and it would still go unpaid if the challenger insisted that grass is purple.

Have any of you read attorney Tommy Cryer's "Memorandum" on the income tax filed as a motion in his successful defense against the Internal Revenue Service in United States v Tommy K. Cryer? You can download it here: http://www.truthattack.org/jml/images/s ... RANDUM.pdf

Not only have I read it, I also knew Cryer personally, and he went to great length to convince me that his anti-tax arguments were true. I'll say this for him: he could argue his pathos with a completely straight, sincere face. Cryer also did not understand the meaning of "brevity." He was always a man to use 10 words where one would have been sufficient. That baffled the jury with BS in his personal case, but didn't fly very well in cases tried before judges.

Unfortunately for him, although Cryer represented several other clients in tax cases, he was never able to repeat his personal "success" for anyone else. In Florida he represented a like-minded anti-tax attorney in a disciplinary case and wound up getting the guy disbarred using those same anti-tax arguments.

And in the end, in his personal Tax Court case? Here's a link to Cryer's final judgment. Not that I think you'll read it. So I'll just point out two key things:

1. In the end Cryer quit arguing that he had NO taxable income, and was instead merely trying do some damage control, to argue that his taxable income was a good bit lower than 1.8 million dollars. The IRS obliged by waiving the taxes on what was clearly client pass-through funds and not income.

2. Cryer was still found guilty and fined for fraudulent intent, as evidenced by his failure to file, failure to maintain business records, and public admissions to other agencies that he did indeed have taxable income.

[The Observer]

Ok, coming up on the 24 hour mark after the inquirer had posted his original list of questions and still no response from him/her. I know that all of us are shocked, shocked I tell ya, that s/he hasn't come back to debunk our answers. But in the spirit of generosity and taking into account the slightest possibility that the inquirer is dutifully involved in deep legal research so that s/he can provide adequate rebuttal to the overwhelming number of responses posted here, I suggest we grant another 24 hours before we pronounce him or her as JADBT*.

*Just Another Drive-By Troll.

[Pottapaug1938]

Funny -- I was just thinking that Inquirer got awfully quiet, all of a sudden. To show that Great Minds Think Alike, I was thinking of almost the identical rank for Inquirer, just as Observer made the most recent post.

[Famspear]

Actually, I'm wrong to refer to "the inquirer" as "the newbie." I notice that he has been doing this off and on since as far back as June of 2010.

He comes here and posts repetitive, tax protester nonsense that he has read somewhere, as though he "believes" we have never seen his "neat stuff" before. He leaves when his neat stuff is shot down, generally without responding to us -- without acknowledging that he has made a fool of himself. He returns months later with more neat stuff (i.e., more repetitive, tax protester nonsense) he copies from somewhere else on the internet. We then shoot that stuff down, illustrating that we have seen that stuff a million times and that he is still a fool.

One of the hallmarks of these tax protester-tax denier types is the inability to recognize (A) that their belief that they are competent is a delusion, and (B) that they are actually profoundly ignorant and incompetent. We're talking serious Dunning-Kruger Effect here.

[The Observer]

Actually, I'm wrong to refer to "the inquirer" as "the newbie." I notice that he has been doing this off and on since as far back as June of 2010.

So was I, in welcoming him to the board. I should have checked for prior posts first. I am wondering if the admins should just declare him meat for the banhammer, given his reputation.

[Pottapaug1938]

Actually, I'm wrong to refer to "the inquirer" as "the newbie." I notice that he has been doing this off and on since as far back as June of 2010.

So was I, in welcoming him to the board. I should have checked for prior posts first. I am wondering if the admins should just declare him meat for the banhammer, given his reputation.

If Inquirer is indeed a serial troll, and keeps on popping up with the same idiocy from time to time, either under his/her own screen name or under sock puppets, I say that it's hammer time. In this latest instance (to say nothing of the others) he/she said not one thing of any value to us or anyone else.

[wserra]

I am wondering if the admins should just declare him meat for the banhammer, given his reputation.

I wouldn't. Look at it this way: he's giving us an opportunity to get accurate information into a google search. Q is already the fifth hit in a google of "Joe Banister". We should thank people like him.

BTW, in doing that quick google, I noticed that the ninth hit is a David Cay Johnston piece in the Times about Banister's acquittal. Among the people quoted in the article is a certain "J.J. MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst" who is "writing a book about people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws".

This was in June of 2005.

[AndyK]

I am wondering if the admins should just declare him meat for the banhammer, given his reputation.

I wouldn't. Look at it this way: he's giving us an opportunity to get accurate information into a google search. Q is already the fifth hit in a google of "Joe Banister". We should thank people like him.

Would "Amen" be appropriate?

[Famspear]

......Among the people quoted in the article is a certain "J.J. MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst" who is "writing a book about people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws".

This was in June of 2005.

So, we're talking about an aging process -- something similar to that required for the development of a fine wine -- right?

[The Observer]

I wouldn't. Look at it this way: he's giving us an opportunity to get accurate information into a google search. Q is already the fifth hit in a google of "Joe Banister". We should thank people like him.

But how many times do we have to thank him for essentially repeating the same exercise over and over? I agree with you if he was a new troll, but he wasn't. We might be better memorializing all of his posts into one thread, locking it and keeping for reference in the future when anyone else decides to repeat the experiment.

wserra wrote:
......Among the people quoted in the article is a certain "J.J. MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst" who is "writing a book about people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws".

This was in June of 2005.

So, we're talking about an aging process -- something similar to that required for the development of a fine wine -- right?

What I thought wes was getting at was the fact that we have never seen this J.J. McNab and the inquirer together at the same time.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm sure that we could set a few people straight on the ideas of redeeming lawful money and the demand therefor, evidence repositories, abatement for misnomer and such if we only threw open our arms and welcomed David Merrill back to these pages; but as most of you know, we finally agreed that any benefit derived from increased web hits was outweighed by the aggravation caused by David's constantly-recycled and evasive posts. I'm not sure that I see any overall benefit from allowing Inquirer to insist that Joe Banister is as pure as the driven new snow.

[wserra]

inquirer has nine posts. DMVP had thousands.

[wserra]

So, we're talking about an aging process -- something similar to that required for the development of a fine wine -- right?

Only longer.

[AndyK]

With respect to the recurring, repetitive posts from various legally enlightened drive-by commentators:

... an aging process ... required for the development of a fine whine

[LPC]

I am wondering if the admins should just declare him meat for the banhammer, given his reputation.

I wouldn't. Look at it this way: he's giving us an opportunity to get accurate information into a google search. Q is already the fifth hit in a google of "Joe Banister". We should thank people like him.

Posts like his also nudge me into checking if any characters like Banister have any more recent legal activity. In Banister's case, I discovered that he filed a new Tax Court petition earlier this year, and that bears watching.

[grixit]

......Among the people quoted in the article is a certain "J.J. MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst" who is "writing a book about people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws".

This was in June of 2005.

So, we're talking about an aging process -- something similar to that required for the development of a fine wine -- right?

A tp whine doesn't improve with age. Their cheesiness, on the other hand...

[Gregg]

BTW, in doing that quick google, I noticed that the ninth hit is a David Cay Johnston piece in the Times about Banister's acquittal. Among the people quoted in the article is a certain "J.J. MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst" who is "writing a book about people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws".

This was in June of 2005.

And where is THAT BOOK anyway?