Spidey on Taxes

[bmielke]

As if the courts would do that. Because then their whole farce would be exposed. It would setup a precedent to dismiss every parking ticket in the country, and that would cost them too much money. Easier to just make the ticket go away.

It happens all the time when their is no Jurisdiction. In the case of Parking Tickets the law gives a court jurisdiction it varies which one but location.

Lets say I take out a loan, don't pay it and get sued. Lets say I live in County X, but my city is primarily in County Y, the loan was signed in County Z. If I am sued in County Y I can get it dismissed, the court has no jurisdiction, I don't live there, if I am sued in County X or Z they have jurisdiction and I can't get it dismissed for jurisdiction.

[Spideynw]

As if the courts would do that. Because then their whole farce would be exposed. It would setup a precedent to dismiss every parking ticket in the country, and that would cost them too much money. Easier to just make the ticket go away.

It happens all the time when their is no Jurisdiction. In the case of Parking Tickets the law gives a court jurisdiction it varies which one but location.

Lets say I take out a loan, don't pay it and get sued. Lets say I live in County X, but my city is primarily in County Y, the loan was signed in County Z. If I am sued in County Y I can get it dismissed, the court has no jurisdiction, I don't live there, if I am sued in County X or Z they have jurisdiction and I can't get it dismissed for jurisdiction.

I never said it doesn't happen ever, so I am not sure what you are addressing. I said it doesn't happen in parking ticket cases.

[bmielke]

I never said it doesn't happen ever, so I am not sure what you are addressing. I said it doesn't happen in parking ticket cases.

I thought your were giving a bad example I did not realize you were serious.

Do you understand Jurisdiction?

There are at least 2, personal and subject matter. By parking your car in the area the court handles you have established personal jurisdiction. How the case is prosecuted is a matter for the statute of whatever state you are in. In Tennessee the Clerk calls the docket, if you wish to fight it the meter maid/police officer will be summoned to court for a later trial date.

The only way the court lacks jurisdiction is if it is in a different county than where you got the ticket.

[bmielke]

Here you go...

United States

The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at a national level. As a common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the U.S. states, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States district courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. A court of original jurisdiction has the power to hear cases as they are first initiated by a plaintiff, while a court of appellate jurisdiction may only hear an action after the court of original jurisdiction (or a lower appellate court) has heard the matter. For example, in United States federal courts, the United States district courts have original jurisdiction over a number of different matters (as mentioned above), and the United States court of appeals have appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from the district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over the Courts of Appeals, as well as the state supreme courts, by means of writ of certiorari.

However, in a special class of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states, and original (but non-exclusive) jurisdiction over cases involving officials of foreign states, controversies between the federal government and a state, actions by a state against the citizens of another state or foreign country.

The word "jurisdiction" is also used, especially in informal writing, to refer to a state or political subdivision generally, or to its government, rather than to its legal authority.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction#United_States

[Spideynw]

I never said it doesn't happen ever, so I am not sure what you are addressing. I said it doesn't happen in parking ticket cases.

The only way the court lacks jurisdiction is if it is in a different county than where you got the ticket.

I disagree. But I don't really care to get into it. My point still stands. If the case was thrown out because of lack of jurisdiction, then all parking ticket cases would get thrown out. Same if it was thrown out because of lack of standing.

[bmielke]

I disagree. But I don't really care to get into it. My point still stands. If the case was thrown out because of lack of jurisdiction, then all parking ticket cases would get thrown out. Same if it was thrown out because of lack of standing.

No.

If one case is thrown out for lack of jurisdiction, then it would have to be a decision made at the appellate level for any real precident to be set. I don't ever recall seeing a parking ticket case there.

[Spideynw]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

[Famspear]

So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. ...

Why is a witness required when the question is whether or not the "client" is a taxpayer? That is a matter of law.

I don't know. But if one is not required, then why wouldn't the attorney just say she doesn't have one and be done with the question instead of avoiding answering for 20 minutes? And then when she does answer, she makes vague references that there might be one. Why?

I suspect that it's because she was confused by the question. She should not have been, but perhaps she was.

Most attorneys do not deal with frivolous tax protester questions with any frequency. I am an attorney, and if I were not studying tax protesters as a hobby, I could well be confused by an irrelevant question by a nutball. I can't speak for the attorney in this case, but what she may have been doing was stalling or evading his question because she was unsure of herself.

Example: If you were to ask me a point blank question about the details of exactly how Internal Revenue Code section 382 applies with respect to the limitations on the use of net operating losses, I'm gonna be flustered and I'm not be able to give you a coherent answer. Yeah, yeah, I've studied section 382, but I haven't used it since the late 1980s, believe it or not. I can't remember all that stuff. Other tax attorneys may use it all the time and know all the gritty details.

Tax protester arguments are not part of the "mainstream" of what occupies the attention of the average attorney or CPA. If the attorney in this case didn't understand what the nutball was driving at, and didn't know how to answer, that's perfectly understandable.

[Famspear]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

I'm not sure why you're asking that question, but here's my answer.

With respect to federal income taxes, you're not violating anyone else's "rights" in a strict legal sense by not paying taxes.

However, you may be violating a federal criminal statute -- if your failure to pay (or even your failure to timely pay) is "willful."

In the context of federal taxes, the term "willful" connotes the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty -- a duty of which you are aware. This is an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a defense. In the case of federal taxes, ignorance of the law may actually be a valid defense. The key word is "may."

EDIT: Of course, lots of people would feel you are violating a civic duty by not paying your taxes. In the case of federal taxes, you would be decreasing the revenue of the federal government, increasing the deficit, etc., etc. This isn't rocket science, so I don't think we need to get into a philosophical discussion.

[Spideynw]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

I'm not sure why you're asking that question, but here's my answer.

With respect to federal income taxes, you're not violating anyone else's "rights" in a strict legal sense by not paying taxes.

Then I don't see how I can be punished. Why would anyone ever complain if no one's rights have been violated?

However, you may be violating a federal criminal statute -- if your failure to pay (or even your failure to timely pay) is "willful."

Isn't a statute a rule made by some strangers I don't know claiming to have a right to rule over me? So are you saying I am violating the rights of the people doing business as government?

EDIT: Of course, lots of people would feel you are violating a civic duty by not paying your taxes. In the case of federal taxes, you would be decreasing the revenue of the federal government, increasing the deficit, etc., etc. This isn't rocket science, so I don't think we need to get into a philosophical discussion.

You don't think it is important to know who the complaining party is or whether any rights were allegedly violated? Maybe this will help. Who is the state/city/nation that is represented in tax cases?

[Duke2Earl]

The concept that there is some sort of legal "precedent" associated with this parking ticket thing is absurd. As I read it what happened is that the "violator" made it very, very clear to the clerk that he was going to be an enormous pain in the ass...that he was going to throw 17 kinds of hissy fit and take up huge amounts of time and cause big time aggravation. And all there was at stake was an overtime parking meter fine. What happened was that the clerk made an executive decision that it wasn't worth it this time. The amount of aggravation to proceed with the prosecution and collect on the ticket wasn't worth the time and pain involved. If you think that was some sort of legal precedent... LMAO!

[Famspear]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

I'm not sure why you're asking that question, but here's my answer.

With respect to federal income taxes, you're not violating anyone else's "rights" in a strict legal sense by not paying taxes.

Then I don't see how I can be punished. Why would anyone ever complain if no one's rights have been violated?

Because under our legal and political system, there is no legal requirement that someone else's "rights" be violated in a strict legal sense in order for society to make a given behavior a criminal offense. You may feel in some deep philosophical way that there should be such a rule, but there isn't.

Isn't a statue [sic] a rule made by some strangers I don't know claiming to have a right to rule over me? So are you saying I am violating the rights of the people doing business as government?

Yes, a statute is a rule made by some strangers you don't know. In the case of federal tax statutes, if you don't know the members of Congress, then they're people who DO INDEED have a "right" (in the broad, inartful sense in which you are using that term) to "rule over you," as you put it.

No, I am not saying that by violating federal tax laws, you would be "violating the rights of people doing business as government." With all due respect, that's an inartful expression. I would say that when you're violating federal tax laws, you're violating laws enacted by our duly elected representatives. Whether you agree with the laws on some philosophical level doesn't change the legal reality of what you're doing.

I don't think I should be punished when no one's rights have been violated.

So, write to your congressman/congresswoman.

And law is philosophy. So I guess you don't like to talk about law. As such, I don't know why you are posting.

I love to talk about law. I have a doctorate in the philosophy of law. The term JURIS DOCTOR (in Latin) or "Doctor of Jurisprudence" (in English) means, roughly, "teacher of the philosophy of law."

However, I have no interest in talking about absolutely everything about the philosophy of law. I'm not interested in the philosophy of environmental law, for example, or patent law. I'm not even interested in some the aspects of the philosophy of tax law. Like most people, I like to think about some stuff, and I find other things boring.

Would you like to talk about the significance of the dates October 16, 2005 and October 17, 2005 as they relate to the duty of a corporate debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case to file state income tax returns? Would you like to discuss the legal philosophy over whether there should be a different rule, depending on something that has to do with those two dates?

Why should you be interested in that question? The answer is: There is no particular reason why you should.

I'm just like you. I like to talk and think about some things, but not other things.

[bmielke]

Then I don't see how I can be punished. Why would anyone ever complain if no one's rights have been violated?

There are a lot of statutes where no one's right have been violated, but they are still criminal. It is all about enforcing order on society. Without order there is mayhem. See for example Firearms statutes. Why limit ownership of Machine Guns.

Isn't a statute a rule made by some strangers I don't know claiming to have a right to rule over me? So are you saying I am violating the rights of the people doing business as government?

We have a representative democracy. We give them the right to rule so that we don't have to go the the ballot box 3 times a week.

You don't think it is important to know who the complaining party is or whether any rights were allegedly violated? Maybe this will help. Who is the state/city/nation that is represented in tax cases?

It is, but your understanding and reality are two entirely different things. When you come back to the real world we can talk.

[Spideynw]

The concept that there is some sort of legal "precedent" associated with this parking ticket thing is absurd. As I read it what happened is that the "violator" made it very, very clear to the clerk that he was going to be an enormous pain in the ass...that he was going to throw 17 kinds of hissy fit and take up huge amounts of time and cause big time aggravation. And all there was at stake was an overtime parking meter fine. What happened was that the clerk made an executive decision that it wasn't worth it this time. The amount of aggravation to proceed with the prosecution and collect on the ticket wasn't worth the time and pain involved. If you think that was some sort of legal precedent... LMAO!

I never said it was a legal precedent.

[bmielke]

I never said it was a legal precedent.

That's what it means when you say every parking ticket would be thrown out.

[Famspear]

Spideynw wrote:

You don't think it is important to know who the complaining party is or whether any rights were allegedly violated? Maybe this will help. Who is the state/city/nation that is represented in tax cases?

Maybe this will help:

I don't care whether you feel that no one's "rights" are violated when someone violates a federal criminal statute.

I don't care whether you feel that it's important to know who the "complaining party" is if you are charged with a federal tax crime.

If you are charged with a federal tax crime, you will KNOW the name of the state/city/nation that is "represented" in the case. If you engage in federal civil (non-criminal) tax litigation, you will know the same thing.

Even if you don't feel that it's fair or philosophically justifiable in some sense that the U.S. Congress has enacted laws that impose a duty on you to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income taxes, I don't care.

[Spideynw]

Then I don't see how I can be punished. Why would anyone ever complain if no one's rights have been violated?

Because under our legal and political system, there is no legal requirement that someone else's "rights" be violated in a strict legal sense in order for society to make a given behavior a criminal offense. You may feel in some deep philosophical way that there should be such a rule, but there isn't.

Then why is anyone represented in tax cases? Why does the prosecutor represent the "state/city/nation"? Who is the state/city/nation?

Isn't a statue [sic] a rule made by some strangers I don't know claiming to have a right to rule over me? So are you saying I am violating the rights of the people doing business as government?

Yes, a statute is a rule made by some strangers you don't know. In the case of federal tax statutes, if you don't know the members of Congress, then they're people who DO INDEED have a "right" (in the broad, inartful sense in which you are using that term) to "rule over you," as you put it.

No, I am not saying that by violating federal tax laws, you would be "violating the rights of people doing business as government." With all due respect, that's an inartful expression. I would say that when you're violating federal tax laws, you're violating laws enacted by our duly elected representatives. Whether you agree with the laws on some philosophical level doesn't change the legal reality of what you're doing.

So, according to you, they have a right to make rules for me and my property. But when I break their rules, I am not breaching their right to rule over me? Anyone else confused?

And law is philosophy. So I guess you don't like to talk about law. As such, I don't know why you are posting.

Sadly, it appears my post did not get edited until after you posted. I have since changed what I said.

[Spideynw]

Famspear's misposting deleted

[Oops, I think I may have accidentally deleted Spideynw's post. I apologize....


--Famspear

(I clicked on the wrong "edit" button -- Famspear

[Famspear]

Then why is anyone represented in tax cases? Why does the prosecutor represent the "state/city/nation"? Who is the state/city/nation?

Maybe this will help: Your use of the term "right" is problematic. You're using the term in a broader sense than I'm using it. Go back and look at my posts. I'm referring to the term "right" in a narrow legal sense. You're using it in a broader sense. For example, "Does society have a right to punish people for doing things that don't hurt others?" In that philosophical question, the term "right" is not being used in the narrow legal sense in which I use the term when I say "Bob does not have a legal right to be on my property without my permission."

You know what a city, state or nation is. I don't need to explain the basic concepts to you.

So, according to you, they have a right to make rules for me and my property. But when I break their rules, I am not breaching their right to rule over me? Anyone else confused?

No. No one else is confused. Yes, the members of Congress have a "right" (in the broad, inartful sense in which you are using the term) to make rules for you and your property. And when you break "their" rules, you are in a sense "breaching their right to rule over you" -- in the sense in which YOU are using the term "right."

You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept of what some legal scholars refer to as the fallacy of whole word equivocation.

[Pottapaug1938]

Spideynw, what you need is a basic course in civics -- sort of a "Civics For Dummies", if you will (note: I own several of that series of books, as well as of the Complete Idiot series, and find them useful as overviews/introductories).

That will clear up your confusion -- IF you stay away from the so-called patriot/sovereign/tax denier books and web sites. They deal only in ignorant word games, and in strip-mining of out-of-context quotes to buttress their dearly-desired pre-set conclusions; and they ignore the fact that people much more wealthy and intelligent that any of them (Bill Gates, for one) don't buy that cr*p for a second. They may try to minimize their tax bite (as do we all), but they do it LEGALLY, and stay away from the wacko theories mentioned like they were radioactive.

A little perusal of past topics on Quatloos will give you quite a nice compendium of why getting too deeply into that sort of idiocy is hazardous to your liberty and your wealth.