new Dave Champion book

[Harvester]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.
31-page .pdf sample download also available

http://taxrevolt.us

[bmielke]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.
31-page .pdf sample download also available

http://taxrevolt.us

Doesn't he have an injunction against him?

[Pottapaug1938]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.
31-page .pdf sample download also available

http://taxrevolt.us

I have a much better chance of fattening my wallet if I head down to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun.

[bmielke]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.
31-page .pdf sample download also available

http://taxrevolt.us

Doesn't he have an injunction against him?

Just read background on him. Um why would you trust yourself to a guy who has already handed over one customer list?

[Demosthenes]

Um why would you trust yourself to a guy who has already handed over one customer list?

That.

[Cpt Banjo]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.

No thanks, I already have a book of fairy tales.

Seriously, I leafed through the sample of birdcage liner that was available at the link and found that Champion peddles the same nonsense that the crackheads do: an excise must be based upon privileged activity. He even makes the claim that "Transferring ownership of property is not a privilege, nor is there any law that would make it so."

Then how does he explain estate and gift taxes?

Don't waste your money on such bilge.

[The Operative]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.
31-page .pdf sample download also available

http://taxrevolt.us

You really will fall for every dip-sh*t theory out there. If you needed to know how a nuclear reactor works, you would ask a first grader instead of asking the nuclear engineer. That is the epitome of stupid.

[bmielke]

You really will fall for every dip-sh*t theory out there. If you needed to know how a nuclear reactor works, you would ask a first grader instead of asking the nuclear engineer. That is the epitome of stupid.

Lets all pray he never decides to try his hand at nuclear physics, or if he does it's for Iran.

[Pottapaug1938]

Dave Champion's Income Tax: Shattering The Myths now available for pre-sale.
31-page .pdf sample download also available

http://taxrevolt.us

You really will fall for every dip-sh*t theory out there. If you needed to know how a nuclear reactor works, you would ask a first grader instead of asking the nuclear engineer. That is the epitome of stupid.

Sad to say, there are many like him who would avoid asking a nuclear engineer about how a nuclear reactor works. After all, a nuclear engineer is highly educated, therefore he considers him (her) self an expert who is smarter than the average person, which makes him (her) an elitist, which makes him (her) worthy of distrust by the average person with common sense. I mean, why should you believe an expert when the guy at the next bar stool or the gal at the next hair dryer has all the common sense a person needs?

[Famspear]

Sad to say, there are many like him who would avoid asking a nuclear engineer about how a nuclear reactor works. After all, a nuclear engineer is highly educated, therefore he considers him (her) self an expert who is smarter than the average person, which makes him (her) an elitist, which makes him (her) worthy of distrust by the average person with common sense. I mean, why should you believe an expert when the guy at the next bar stool or the gal at the next hair dryer has all the common sense a person needs?

Wackadoos like Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist would also probably say that because the nuclear engineers work in the nuclear engineering field, they have a vested interest in hiding "The Truth" about nuclear physics from the public, and that somehow the Wackadoo World Theories are "really" The Truth -- just as the Wackadoos argue that 99.99999% of the people who work in the federal income tax field are somehow corrupted by their supposed vested interest in suppressing The Truth.

It's really quite remarkable how these Wackadoos have constructed an imaginary, mental world where up seems to be down and down is up.

To read Pete Hendricksons' latest nonsense in isolation from reality, for example, you would never know that he has lost every single court case, that his followers have lost every single court case, that he is under a court order never to use his own scam on his own tax return again, and that he is scheduled to be sentenced -- only four days from now -- for using his own scam on his own fraudulent federal income tax returns.

Tax protesters are people who will refuse to accept almost any truth about federal income tax law, and who are not just willing but eager to embrace almost any delusion about the same law.

[wserra]

why would you trust yourself to a guy who has already handed over one customer list?

The details are right here.

[Harvester]

huh? I have nothing against anyone. . . unless they're trying to scam me; or defend & protect that scam. No, I'm no nuclear engineer (although I do know how to make my electric meter spin backwards).
And no, I'm no tax protester, although in this stage of our collapse I can't blame a tax protester for placing their own needs above the bankers. You see I've found something much better than a protest - the Income Tax doesn't even apply to my pay!
http://losthorizons.com

[LPC]

In the sample chapter 2, Champion starts with the following statement:

In order to properly understand the boundaries and limitations that Congress
has when creating federal tax law, it is first necessary to understand what the
Constitution permits and doesn’t permit.

Let's compare that statement with the following statement of a unanimous Supreme Court:

“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).

Quite a difference in tone, don't you think?

I love this statement on page 26:

After almost two decades of research, it is my well-considered opinion that the U.S. government’s authority to impose a Direct tax is restricted to slaves and land.

You can see where he's going with this, can't you? He's taking statements from Hylton that "direct taxes" are limited to capitations and taxes on land and slaves, and turning it on its head, making it sound like Congress can't impose a direct tax on anything except land and slaves, and so can't tax incomes directly.

And then we get into the "right to work" crap, and it settles into the usual "excise means privilege" crap.

What's amazing is that there doesn't seem to be anything new or original. You could cut-and-paste it from any one of dozens of semi-literate web sites.

[Brandybuck]

although in this stage of our collapse...

Just reminder that you're going to have to pay up that gold you wagered next April 1st. Pretending that the system collapsed will not avail you. If the IRS is still collecting taxes, you will owe me.

p.s. Although I grant the possibility that you might win. There is an improbable, yet finite, possibility that a meteor could strike, martians could invade, or the oceans could rise, causing the IRS to temporarily close their doors.

[Famspear]

And no, I'm no tax protester, although in this stage of our collapse I can't blame a tax protester for placing their own needs above the bankers. You see I've found something much better than a protest - the Income Tax doesn't even apply to my pay!
http://losthorizons.com

(emphasis added).

If you espouse the theories propounded at the losthorizons web site, then you are a tax protester - by definition. A tax protester is defined as someone who refuses:

to pay taxes or file tax returns out of a mistaken belief that the federal income tax [ . . . ]does not apply to them under one of a number of bizarre arguments......

--Daniel B. Evans, J.D., from The Tax Protester FAQ (emphasis added).

For example, Harvester, if you refuse to pay federal income tax based on the belief that the term "wage" as used in the Internal Revenue Code does not include earnings from a private sector activity not involving a federal privilege. then you are a tax protester. That is, in substance, an argument that the federal income tax does not apply to your pay. That is a bizarre argument. That is a legally false argument. It is an argument that has been ruled to be without merit by every single federal court that has ruled on that issue.

You are a tax protester, Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist.

[LPC]

And no, I'm no tax protester,

If you'd prefer "tax denier," that's okay.

[Harvester]

Yes, Congress has very extensive powers of taxation. But what has been enacted is not extensive; it's a very limited tax. It's an indirect excise tax entitled to be enforced as such. And this is why the Tax Code doesn't define income (aside from an obfuscatory definition) because to define it clearly would reveal its limited nature.

Nope, never said the The federal Income Tax did not apply to me. It applies to anyone Congress has jurisdiction over. I said it did not apply to my pay, as it wasn't income under the Revenue Acts. I did receive some income in 2009; interest from a national bank. And I pay all taxes I legally owe.

BTW, Champion has stated that he agrees 99% with Hendrickson; differing only on his Form 4852 rebuttal thing.

Anyway, it'll be a moot issue soon enough - it's all going bye-bye. Then you'll have to get a real job, oh sorry hobby (ha!), I forget what with all that $ your mack-daddy funnels into your secret accounts.

[The Operative]

Yes, Congress has very extensive powers of taxation. But what has been enacted is not extensive; it's a very limited tax. It's an indirect excise tax entitled to be enforced as such. And this is why the Tax Code doesn't define income (aside from an obfuscatory definition) because to define it clearly would reveal its limited nature.

Nonsense.

Nope, never said the The federal Income Tax did not apply to me. It applies to anyone Congress has jurisdiction over.

Which includes you.

I said it did not apply to my pay, as it wasn't income under the Revenue Acts.

More nonsense.

I did receive some income in 2009; interest from a national bank. And I pay all taxes I legally owe.

If you are not paying income taxes on your pay, then you are not paying all of the taxes that you legally owe.

BTW, Champion has stated that he agrees 99% with Hendrickson; differing only on his Form 4852 rebuttal thing.

Whether he agrees with Hendrickson or not is irrelevant because they are both wrong.

Anyway, it'll be a moot issue soon enough - it's all going bye-bye. Then you'll have to get a real job, oh sorry hobby (ha!), I forget what with all that $ your mack-daddy funnels into your secret accounts.

Repeating a delusional thought will never make the delusion come true.

[Famspear]

Yes, Congress has very extensive powers of taxation. But what has been enacted is not extensive; it's a very limited tax. It's an indirect excise tax entitled to be enforced as such. And this is why the Tax Code doesn't define income (aside from an obfuscatory definition) because to define it clearly would reveal its limited nature.

Nope, never said the The federal Income Tax did not apply to me. It applies to anyone Congress has jurisdiction over. I said it did not apply to my pay, as it wasn't income under the Revenue Acts. I did receive some income in 2009; interest from a national bank. And I pay all taxes I legally owe.

BTW, Champion has stated that he agrees 99% with Hendrickson; differing only on his Form 4852 rebuttal thing.

Anyway, it'll be a moot issue soon enough - it's all going bye-bye. Then you'll have to get a real job, oh sorry hobby (ha!), I forget what with all that $ your mack-daddy funnels into your secret accounts.

Oh, yes, thanks for remind us. Let's see, here's a summary of some of your positions posted over the past few weeks:

1. The federal income tax doesn't apply to you.

2. Peter Hendrickson will never be sentenced.

3. The federal income tax is going away -- apparently by October 15, 2010.



And, yes, Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist, I see that it still riles you that this is just a hobby for me. Oh, boo-hoo!

[LPC]

Yes, Congress has very extensive powers of taxation. But what has been enacted is not extensive; it's a very limited tax.

Not according to the United States Supreme Court.

“Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-431 (1955) (emphasis added).

It's an indirect excise tax entitled to be enforced as such.

With specific emphasis on "entitled to be enforced."

And this is why the Tax Code doesn't define income (aside from an obfuscatory definition) because to define it clearly would reveal its limited nature.

What "limited nature"? See Glenshaw Glass, above.

Nope, never said the The federal Income Tax did not apply to me.

Liar.

It applies to anyone Congress has jurisdiction over.

Which means that you're either admitting that the federal income tax applies to you, or you're claiming that it does *not* apply to you, and admitting that you're a liar.

I said it did not apply to my pay, as it wasn't income under the Revenue Acts.

A proposition for which you have provided *zero* authority and *zero* logic.

BTW, Champion has stated that he agrees 99% with Hendrickson;

Then Champion can serve 99% of Hendrickson's sentence.