Minneapolis litigator praises Schiff and Hendrickson

[Quixote]

Doctors, pilots and actors might have an excuse, though not much of one, for not understanding the plain language of the IRC, but what is Bill Butler's excuse? He is apparently a Minneapolis attorney with a successful practice. But in an article on Strike the Root, http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/butler/butler1.html , he refers to "the brave and intelligent Irwin Schiff" and has this to say about the definition of employee.

The definition of wages begs the question, “who is an employee”? The answer is also found in section 3401:

(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia , or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Pretty narrow definition. Clearly doesn’t include any free market employee. Strange, but true. In future pieces I will discuss the history and development of the Code.

Is he a true believer or just trying to break into the lucrative moron market?

[bmielke]

Doctors, pilots and actors might have an excuse, though not much of one, for not understanding the plain language of the IRC, but what is Bill Butler's excuse? He is apparently a Minneapolis attorney with a successful practice. But in an article on Strike the Root, http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/butler/butler1.html , he refers to "the brave and intelligent Irwin Schiff" and has this to say about the definition of employee.

The definition of wages begs the question, “who is an employee”? The answer is also found in section 3401:

(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia , or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Pretty narrow definition. Clearly doesn’t include any free market employee. Strange, but true. In future pieces I will discuss the history and development of the Code.

Is he a true believer or just trying to break into the lucrative moron market?

I would hope the former, but I remember reading about that Law Professor from up there so it could well be that he is a true believer. Is their something in the water up there in Minnesota, or is it the long cold winters?

[Brandybuck]

As an English major, I have no problems understanding that "includes" is inclusion and not exclusive. Maybe the problem with the tax deniers is not that they're ignorant of the law, but that they're ignorant of the language.

[Cpt Banjo]

It's the lutefisk...........

Washed down with WAY too much Leinenkugel's.

[Imalawman]

Who the hell is this guy? Anyone able to dig up any info? Lawschool, cases, etc... (don't have time to really look past name on google)

[Pottapaug1938]

As an English major, I have no problems understanding that "includes" is inclusion and not exclusive. Maybe the problem with the tax deniers is not that they're ignorant of the law, but that they're ignorant of the language.

When I was practicing law, I made use of the horrible "includes, but is not limited to" phrase because I knew that there were people out there, even in the legal profession, who think that "includes" is a term of exclusion (and if I intended it to be so, I said "includes only").

[Famspear]

As an English major, I have no problems understanding that "includes" is inclusion and not exclusive. Maybe the problem with the tax deniers is not that they're ignorant of the law, but that they're ignorant of the language.

When I was practicing law, I made use of the horrible "includes, but is not limited to" phrase because I knew that there were people out there, even in the legal profession, who think that "includes" is a term of exclusion (and if I intended it to be so, I said "includes only").

Even the Congress has done that, though, in Internal Revenue Code section 61(a). However, intensive redundancy (or emphatic redundancy) in language serves its purpose, as you noted.

[LPC]

Bill Butler calls himself (or his law firm) "Libertas Lex."

The reference to tax law explains that they have a "strategic relationship" with a real law firm that really knows something about tax law. Except that the other law firm claims expertise in eminent domain law and doesn't seem to practice tax law at all.

I wonder if Butler knows the difference between "tax" and "eminent domain."

[LPC]

According to the Minnesota court system, Butler represents private clients but does not carry liability insurance. See http://www.mncourts.gov/MARS/AttorneyDe ... id=0227912

That's a strange decision.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

In Minnesota, we have four law schools with in five miles churning out lawyers and releasing them into the wild. Most don't make it into practice after many hours of document discovery and Thompson West employment. If you are smart and resourceful you can make it. If not, you go back and combine that JD with something else, otherwise you look elsewhere.

A friend of mine got her JD, was out of work for five years and has since swallowed the birfer kool-aid. It's hard to hold a conversation with her because she always steers it towards that damn birfer nonsense! She still maintains her license.

Her record looks like his.