Could Protestor Arguments Work for You?

[Paths of the Sea]

Today from Forbes' Peter J. Reilly:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... k-for-you/

It includes an honorable mention of Quatloos and its recent coverage of the case here.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[rogfulton]

Mr Reilly, are you a 'Quatlooser' or did you follow a link from Dan's FAQ?

[Paths of the Sea]

Peter asked me to post this here for him:

From: Peter J. Reilly, Forbes contributor
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:39:04 -0500

Subject: Re: Inquiring Quatloosian Minds!

I don't think of myself as a quatloosian although
I do check in at the site from time to time.

I've communicated with Dan Evans.

I think one time I made some feeble attempt to
try to locate who I could interview about quatloos.

Please post that for me as I don't want to join
another site.

I would love it if whoever is in charge of the tax
protester section would email me and possibly
do an interview.

-----------------------------------------

[webhick]

I would love it if whoever is in charge of the tax
protester section would email me and possibly
do an interview.

Emphasis mine.

The lunatics run the asylum.

[wserra]

I would love it if whoever is in charge of the tax protester section would email me and possibly do an interview.

No one is in charge. We're an autonomous anarcho-syndicalist commune.

But you want to speak with Dan.

[Paths of the Sea]

The lunatics run the asylum.

Could make for an interesting and entertaining interview!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Jeffrey]

I thought that section operates under Admiralty UCC law.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I thought that section operates under Admiralty UCC law.

Actually, it's the illuminati division.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Interview? Interview? - can't you wait for the book like the rest of us?

[LPC]

I would love it if whoever is in charge of the tax protester section would email me and possibly do an interview.

No one is in charge. We're an autonomous anarcho-syndicalist commune.

But you want to speak with Dan.

Yes, if you're looking for someone with a little authority, I have as little as anyone.

[ba-dum ching]

[fortinbras]

As for "could protestor arguments work"? Yes, using them could win you free room and board at a gated community.

[Kestrel]

As for "could protestor arguments work"? Yes, using them could win you free room and board at a gated community.

Unfortunately, your allowable stay in said gated community is likely to be short, and extremely likely to ensure that you don't ever again qualify for voluntary residence in a nicer gated community. Something about low earnings expectations and a mandatory background check...

[The Observer]

I would love it if whoever is in charge of the tax protester section would email me and possibly do an interview.

No one is in charge. We're an autonomous anarcho-syndicalist commune.

But you want to speak with Dan.

Yes, if you're looking for someone with a little authority, I have as little as anyone.

[ba-dum ching]

Any reason we are not suggesting the founder and owner of the site? Yes, I know we refer to him as "He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named", but still...

[webhick]

Any reason we are not suggesting the founder and owner of the site? Yes, I know we refer to him as "He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named", but still...

Killjoy. I FB'd him.

[Paths of the Sea]

A "Robert Bishop" has made his first appearance on Forbes in response to Peter's article and he sounds quite like the typical anti-government, anti-tax, sovrun sort.

Some here may want to respond to him there:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... k-for-you/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[AndyK]

A "Robert Bishop" has made his first appearance on Forbes in response to Peter's article and he sounds quite like the typical anti-government, anti-tax, sovrun sort.

...

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

Bordering on the understatement of the year. I'd copy Bishop's barf here, but then (1) no one would read the original article (which deserves to be read), (2) any responses / rebuttals to Bishop should be in situ, and (3) it might cause Bishop to start a tirade here.

[Paths of the Sea]

...any responses / rebuttals to
Bishop should be in situ...

After digesting Bishop's commentary a bit, I picked on a point of interest and challenged him to "come out" and give me something to work with and posted my comments there.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Bishop presents a lot of targets, so one is able to pick and choose what might be addressed.

Among other things, I just posted the following message. I think it's kinda neat. Let me know what you experts think.

-----------------------

@ Robert Bishop

I did pick out an issue that caught my eye and I will
give it a try in explaining one of your problems.

You wrote, in part:

- “Why does the IRS use a GIFT Tax form
- (W-4,W-2, 1099etc.) to force me to gift
- my property to them.”
-
- “See IRM 6209(2013) Master code file,
- p. 2-1 thru 2-5 & 4-2.”

IRM 6209 is a manual.

Pages 2-1 thru 2-5 & 4-1 thru 4-2 indicate, in relevant part:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pia/6209_Sec_2_2013.pdf
(Hint: That is a link!)

- “Section 2 – Tax Returns and Forms”
-
- “W-2 Wage & Tax Statement Tax Class 5″
- “W-4 Employees Withholding Certificate Tax Class 5″
- “1099-A Information Return… Tax Class 5″

and

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pia/6209_Sec_4_2013.pdf
(Hint: That is a link!)

- “Section 4 – Document Locator Number”
-
- “The third digit is the tax class.”
- “This indicates the type of tax each transaction involves.”
-
- “5 Information Return Processing (IRP), Estate and Gift Tax.”

Is that the information you, Robert Bishop, are using
to falsely claim that W-2′s, W-4′s and 1099′s are

- “GIFT tax forms forcing you
- to gift your property to them”???

If so, please explain and I’ll try to help you out of that problem.

----------------------------------------

[LPC]

A "Robert Bishop" has made his first appearance on Forbes in response to Peter's article and he sounds quite like the typical anti-government, anti-tax, sovrun sort.

Some here may want to respond to him there:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... k-for-you/

Here's the response:

Thank you for your attention. I have about 40, so due to time I will list a few. (I don’t type fast.) I apologize for sounding angry. The IRS won’t allow me a hearing,& my Rep. & Senator are silence. If the law is frivolous why doesn’t the IRS, or Gov. allow a hearing? I should be easy to shutdown? Hear goes:
Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955), Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969), Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916), Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277,280 (1946) Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) Redfield v. Fisher, 135 Or. 180,292 P. 813,814,817,819 (Ore. 1930) Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557,271, S.W. 720,733,(1925) Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos, 100 Fla. 863,130 So. 699,705 (1930) Jack Cole Co. v. Mac Farland, 337 S.W. 2d 453,455-56 (Tenn.1960) Coppage v. Kansas, 231 US 1, Flora v. U.S. 145 (1960) Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103,112-114 (1916) Murdock v. Commonwealth of PA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875;L Ed at 1298 (1943) Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470,481 (1929) U.S. v. Balard, 575 F. 2d 400 (1976) Eisner v. Macomber,252 U.S. 189, at205 (1920) U.S. v. Bishop 412 US 346. Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425.

Yes, it's citation-barf.

Many of these "citations" are addressed in the TP FAQ. Starting at the top:

Oliver v. Halstead. Jesus Christ. Talk about a dead horse. It's a Virginia Supreme Court decision about whether nonprofit corporations can pay wages to employees. It has NOTHING to do with the federal income tax. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

Conner. Another zombie. Yes, "compensation" for the destruction of a residence by an insurance company for a fire is not taxable. But that has nothing to do with compensation for services. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

Lucas v. Earl. Gag me with a spoon. Probably reading from the appellant's (losing) brief. From the actual opinion: "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

Gould v. Gould. It's an ALIMONY CASE goddammit. And it's been reversed by statute. If you're not collecting alimony before 1918, it's useless.

Refield v. Fisher is an Oregon opinion that isn't even good law in Oregon. But the morons will never understand that. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rights

Etc., etc., etc.

And so it goes.

[Paths of the Sea]

Yes, it's citation-barf.

Dan,

Thanks for filling in some of the details.

Robert Bishop's efforts on the Forbes venue may be short-lived.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!