A Defender Responds

[LPC]

I get stuff from time to time about my Tax Protester FAQ, and this seemed coherent enough to post:

To whom it may concern, 

As an ardent patriot and defender of liberties and freedoms granted to us by many brave individuals, I am always curious when I come across any site so dedicated to a position such as yours. While I admire the great lengths you went to in your 'tax protestor' FAQ, I'm always suspicious of such commitment and dedication all for the sake of dispelling some perceived myths. After all, by your own admission, this effort has apparently gone on for 10-12 years. 

So my knee-jerk reaction was wondering if perhaps you were a shill for the I.R.S. or other government agency. After all, there are too many inconsistencies and irreconcilable omissions simply from lack of positive law, no singular publishing in the federal register and the (intentionally?) vague, contradictory and convoluted word games with the Internal Revenue Code, or 26 U.S.C. to be exact. Anyone with basic understanding of law knows to use active voice and spell out clearly the legal intentions. I imagine it's no coincidence that so few 'frivolous' positions are made against criminal codes--because they are clear, concise and were drafted in such a way that the meaning left little to be interpreted. So it's an easy leap to wonder why these same legal minds could not accomplish the same with the tax code. Anyone with a search function on their computer can see for themselves how remarkable it is that "citizen" is mentioned so few times in the code,
yet "alien" is found overly-saturated. 

For these reasons of logic alone, it's easy to question why someone would go to great lengths, such as you have done, to vigorously defend the incestuous 'case precedence' of the 'frivolous' positions. Then, lo and behold, your profile page cleared up any confusion: United States Tax Court. A former (read: current?) tax-perpetrator continuing to further the revenue-collecting agenda at the behest of the Fed. Shocking! 

It would be easy to assume you're a plant. But that assumption would be made unfairly and in haste. It may even be a leap to conclude you've been a beneficiary of the I.R.S. whistle-blower rewards, which have been proven to be paid to certain judiciaries that have upheld the frivolous legal positions of the I.R.S. itself. Whatever your motivation, your clear commitment to this cause show an established agenda and only further corroborate that perhaps the tax 'protestor' arguments have struck a nerve with the unconstitutional bounty-hunters that have been stealing from the American people for a century without direct apportionment. 

Though in a system with such a stacked deck, a law degree may warrant some kind of nobility or a bar membership may seek to suppress the people, knowledge is not monopolized by just those legal scholars working on behalf of the bureau. Too many intelligent, dedicated individuals have blown holes through the status quo for this sham to continue misleading the public for long. Mark my words: the day of reckoning where these lies and half-truths will be exposed. In the meantime, winning a game on account of corrupt referees is not indicative of fair play anymore than the bureau's reliance on stacked tax court and federal court victories over brave but helpless citizens is somehow affirmation the law is on their side.

I appreciate the lengths you've gone to take a stand. It makes me more staunch in my beliefs that the federal government is committing fraud by deception against the public. And the reactions from agents of the Fed and keepers of the Puerto Rico Trust Fund only continue to purport themselves as engaged in overly defensive propaganda. 

You, sir, are unwittingly helping the cause in the quest for truth. Remember: Hitler and Goebbles advocated lies, really big lies and telling them right out in the open. 

Best of luck and God bless,

F.T.

[Famspear]

As an ardent patriot and defender of liberties and freedoms.....

......I'm always suspicious.....

.....wondering if perhaps you were a shill for the I.R.S. or other government agency.....

....too many inconsistencies and irreconcilable omissions....

........lack of positive law, no singular publishing in the federal register and the (intentionally?) vague, contradictory and convoluted word games with the Internal Revenue Code.....

......I imagine it's no coincidence......

.......So it's an easy leap to wonder......

.....Anyone with a search function on their computer can see for themselves......

......it's easy to question why someone would go to great lengths......

.......A former (read: current?) tax-perpetrator continuing to further the revenue-collecting agenda at the behest of the Fed. Shocking!......

......your clear commitment to this cause show an established agenda........

.......the unconstitutional bounty-hunters that have been stealing from the American people.....

.......a system with such a stacked deck......

......a bar membership may seek to suppress the people.......

.....this sham......

....misleading the public.....

............the day of reckoning where these lies and half-truths will be exposed......

......winning a game on account of corrupt referees is not indicative of fair play.....

......reliance on stacked tax court and federal court victories....

.....brave but helpless citizens......

.......It makes me more staunch in my beliefs that the federal government is committing fraud by deception against the public. And the reactions from agents of the Fed and keepers of the Puerto Rico Trust Fund only continue to purport themselves as engaged in overly defensive propaganda.

........Remember: Hitler and Goebbles advocated lies, really big lies and telling them right out in the open.......

This material reminds me of the quote:

In every utterance a speaker or writer unknowingly tells us a great deal about himself of which he is entirely unaware.

--Walter C. Langer, ''The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report'', p. 147 (Basic Books Inc. 1972).

"F.T." is deeply into paranoia.

This is the classic tax protester "you can't fool me" thought process.

"I know there's really a monster under the bed, and the fact that I can't see the monster just proves how diabolically clever and evil the monster is."

[webhick]

That's an awfully well-spoken and polite tax denier there. He's obviously a government shill who was told to email that to you so you would post it here so that the movement could get more traction and the government could issue more of those annoyance fees ::ahem:: I mean sanctions and frivolous penalties.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Even coherent argument cannot prevail against reality.

[notorial dissent]

There are a lot of very coherent crazy people running around loose, but there coherence doesn't make them any less crazy. That their fantasies are just better and more cleanly constructed, does not alter the fact that they are in fact fantasies.

[wserra]

Even coherent argument cannot prevail against reality.

While that is certainly true, this isn't coherent argument. It isn't argument at all. It's nothing more than name-calling.

On some level, people who are capable of writing in complete grammatical sentences may realize that they can't dispute something like Dan's FAQ on the merits. They then turn to "shill", "incestuous", "plant", "agenda", "stacked deck", violations of Godwin's law and so forth. It doesn't only happen with the law. I get this all the time in contexts such as insisting that the purveyors of "natural remedies" (or whatever nostrum is at issue) show that they actually work. Being unable to do that, those purveyors then trot out the accusations of bias ("You must work for Big Pharma") instead of facts.

If someone has a problem with Dan's FAQ, the logical route is clear: show where Dan is wrong. However, since the logical route is unavailable, s/he goes with the ad hominem. With all due respect to Dan and Judge Roy, that tortuous road is only "coherent" to the extent that the poster is able to traverse it with better than third-grade grammar.

And s/he still can't spell "Goebbels", or be bothered to take the time to look it up.

[Duke2Earl]

Some people create what passes for happiness by rejecting objective reality and instead choose to live in a world of delusions they create for themselves. Unfortunately, it doesn't just happen here but is exhibited in the newspapers every day. I wish I had an answer.

[webhick]

Some people create what passes for happiness by rejecting objective reality and instead choose to live in a world of delusions they create for themselves.

To quote Adam Savage, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

[Prof]

Dan, would you please tell me where this oft-repeated, but I know to be untrue, statement or opinion comes from?

It may even be a leap to conclude you've been a beneficiary of the I.R.S. whistle-blower rewards, which have been proven to be paid to certain judiciaries that have upheld the frivolous legal positions of the I.R.S. itself.

Also, I presume that the reference to you and the Tax Court refers only to the fact that you practice in the Tax Court and are not (secretly) a judge?

[David Merrill]

Dan, would you please tell me where this oft-repeated, but I know to be untrue, statement or opinion comes from?

It may even be a leap to conclude you've been a beneficiary of the I.R.S. whistle-blower rewards, which have been proven to be paid to certain judiciaries that have upheld the frivolous legal positions of the I.R.S. itself.

Also, I presume that the reference to you and the Tax Court refers only to the fact that you practice in the Tax Court and are not (secretly) a judge?

Aren't federal judges Taxpayers?

Wouldn't avoiding an audit be like money in your pocket?

[David Merrill]

Let me please clarify my point:


Do I want to be giving my name to a federal judge?

[Prof]

More DVMP gibberish. Pfui.

[David Merrill]

More DVMP gibberish. Pfui.

It would seem the most blatant Conflict of Interest at first blush.

How can a Taxpayer rule as an arbitrary party in any tax matter? I heard that federal judges gave themselves a raise recently based on that their salaries cannot be diminished. So they cited fractional lending - inflation. Being a Taxpayer is also diminished salary.

Sorry. It may be a bit off point; but that is only because I doubt anybody can prove that judiciaries ruling in support of the $5K frivolous fines are getting a cut. - Mainly because I don't believe it either.

[Famspear]

....I heard that federal judges gave themselves a raise recently based on that their salaries cannot be diminished.....

You're hearing things.

[Prof]

More DVMP gibberish. Pfui.

It would seem the most blatant Conflict of Interest at first blush.

How can a Taxpayer rule as an arbitrary party in any tax matter? I heard that federal judges gave themselves a raise recently based on that their salaries cannot be diminished. So they cited fractional lending - inflation. Being a Taxpayer is also diminished salary.

Sorry. It may be a bit off point; but that is only because I doubt anybody can prove that judiciaries ruling in support of the $5K frivolous fines are getting a cut. - Mainly because I don't believe it either.

More untrue gibberish. Lies and balderdash.

[David Merrill]

Actually Prof;


I think most or all federal judges really are US Taxpayers.

[fortinbras]

A) Yes, judges - federal and state - are taxpayers. There was some litigation nearly a century ago based on the newly enacted income tax and the Constitutional provision that a judge's salary could not be reduced. After a number of court decisions it was finally resolved that taxes that apply to everybody also apply to judges, but taxes that apply only to, say, lawyers, will not apply to judges.

B) If everyone is a taxpayer then there is no reason why a taxpayer cannot be a judge. Under the Rule of Necessity, a judge should not recuse himself because a case might affect him IF every other judge would be similarly affected.

C) No. Judges did not award themselves a pay increase. The pay of federal judges is set by Congress.

[Harvester]

Yes, Dan is a great help to our quest for truth & freedom - mainly by his inability to bring facts & law against the law we patriots use to get free. His support for the banking cartel is unshakable; he regularly shies away from any discussion involving lawful money (or bitcoin for that matter).

And please forgive my friend Famspear, his pathologies become more evident every time he tries to play internet psychiatrist.

[Brandybuck]

I listened to a podcast this week interviewing the author of "Among the Truthers". While the interview focused on the bizarro world of truthers and birthers, the author made an amazing claim, which he backed up. Most conspiracists are of above average intelligence.

The reason is simple once you think about it. Dumb people know they're dumb so they tend to trust experts. But throughout their lives smart people are told that they are smart and don't need experts. So they more readily ignore the knowledge of experts. They are more apt to trust their own reasoning even in areas where they have no expertise. So when they stumble across an "anomaly" they start doing their own "research" instead of asking an expert for an explanation.

[Pottapaug1938]

I listened to a podcast this week interviewing the author of "Among the Truthers". While the interview focused on the bizarro world of truthers and birthers, the author made an amazing claim, which he backed up. Most conspiracists are of above average intelligence.

The reason is simple once you think about it. Dumb people know they're dumb so they tend to trust experts. But throughout their lives smart people are told that they are smart and don't need experts. So they more readily ignore the knowledge of experts. They are more apt to trust their own reasoning even in areas where they have no expertise. So when they stumble across an "anomaly" they start doing their own "research" instead of asking an expert for an explanation.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book.