Spidey on Taxes

[Famspear]

I do want to apologize to everyone for accidentally deleting one of Spideynw's posts.

--Famspear

[Spideynw]

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

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

I asked who not what. Humor me please.

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."

I am using it in the strict sense. Maybe standing would be a better term for you?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. (bold added)

I would say a rights violation is suffering some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury. It is really a simple concept. Such as murder. My right to life was violated. Theft, my right to my property was violated. Do you think supreme court decisions apply to federal cases? If so, then could you please explain who has suffered some direct or substantial injury by me not paying taxes?

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

You seem to be having the difficulty of making something out of nothing.

[bmielke]

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

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

I asked who not what. Humor me please.

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."

I am using it in the strict sense. Maybe standing would be a better term for you?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. (bold added)

I would say a rights violation is suffering some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury. It is really a simple concept. Such as murder. My right to life was violated. Theft, my right to my property was violated. Do you think supreme court decisions apply to federal cases? If so, then could you please explain who has suffered some direct or substantial injury by me not paying taxes?

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

You seem to be having the difficulty of making something out of nothing.

To the lawyers out there, I thought standing was only an issue in Civil Court. In criminal court the state always has standing to bring a case.

[Famspear]

I asked who [is the state/city/nation] not what. Humor me please.

No.

I am using it [the term "right"] in the strict sense. Maybe standing would be a better term for you?

No. You are using the term "right" in a broad and somewhat imprecise sense. I am using the term "right" in a more narrow, or strict sense.

I am using the term "right" to exclude the power of a political unit -- such as political unit or body known as the United States of America -- to constitute a Congress that enacts statutes that impose taxation. You are using the term "right" to include that same power. You may be thinking of arguing that no such "right" exists, or at least that no such "right" should exist, and if you are thinking of making that argument, fine. I am point out to you that your use of the term "right" is broader than my use of the same term -- in this particular case.

You seem to be having the difficulty of making something out of nothing.

No. I do not "seem" to be having "the difficulty of making something out of nothing."

The careful consideration of semantics -- the meanings of things (especially the meanings of words) -- is sometimes important.

In the broad sense in which you are using the term "right" (to include the legal power of a political unit to enact laws imposing taxes, for example), the political unit known as the United States of America does have that "right." And, in the broad sense in which you are using the term, you could say that the "rights" of the political unit known as the USA are violated when someone violates a criminal statute enacted under the authority of that political unit.

EDIT: In other words, I am saying that Congress has the "right" (as you are using the term) to enact tax laws -- including laws under which those who disobey those laws are punished.

[Famspear]

To the lawyers out there, I thought standing was only an issue in Civil Court. In criminal court the state always has standing to bring a case.

I'll defer to those here with criminal law experience (which I don't have) if I'm wrong or imprecise, but I would say that yes, in a criminal case, the state has the legal authority to prosecute someone for an alleged violation of a criminal statute, and that a defendant cannot defeat that authority by arguing that the state somehow has no "standing" to prosecute violations of its own laws.

[Dr. Caligari]

I'll defer to those here with criminal law experience (which I don't have) if I'm wrong or imprecise, but I would say that yes, in a criminal case, the state has the legal authority to prosecute someone for an alleged violation of a criminal statute, and that a defendant cannot defeat that authority by arguing that the state somehow has no "standing" to prosecute violations of its own laws.

Exactly right. You will never find a criminal case discussing the doctrine of standing.

[wserra]

To the lawyers out there, I thought standing was only an issue in Civil Court. In criminal court the state always has standing to bring a case.

Correct. On rare occasions in criminal cases - especially in federal courts - jurisdiction is an issue. Standing is not.

One of the many Stevens fantasies. He goes, "Crimes are torts. Standing is an issue in torts. Therefore standing is an issue in crimes." Since crimes are not torts, all the rest fails.

[grixit]

People like Spideynw give sophistry a bad name.

[wserra]

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.

That's really interesting "logic".

All judges are really shape-shifting aliens. However, if a case was ever thrown out because the judge was a shape-shifting alien, then all cases would get thrown out.

Insert your favorite wild-eyed conspiracy theory here.

[iplawyer]

I would say a rights violation is suffering some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury. It is really a simple concept. Such as murder. My right to life was violated. Theft, my right to my property was violated. Do you think supreme court decisions apply to federal cases? If so, then could you please explain who has suffered some direct or substantial injury by me not paying taxes?

Okay, nitwit, I will tell you. Roads don't build themselves. Airports don't rise out of the ground magically. Soldiers in the army working for our government don't do it for nothing. All of that has to be paid for. In our country an elaborate tax scheme exist to fund such activities. Part of that scheme requires you and me to pay a share. When you don't pay your part - others have to pay more or we all have to do without services. So everyone in the country suffers and is directly injured because you are a nitwit.

If you don't like our system - too bad. You have two legal choices. You can pay the tax the government says you owe and work to change the system thru legal channels. Or you can denounce your citizenship and go live in another country where you approve of some different method of funding the government. And you can also do what you are apparently doing, breaking the law and not paying the tax you owe. In that case - you are in for a miserable life running, hiding, and trying to avoid the IRS. You'll lose everything you have and probably your family. You'll be stuck working for the knds of jobs that only pay cash - and not a lot of it. Have fun.

Meanwhile, the rest of us law abiding citizens will go home from our jobs at the end of the work day and enjoy a fine beverage looking over the property we own due to our hard work. We'll grumble each year at tax time when we see we pay more in taxes every year than nitwits like you make in a year or two or three. We'll pay nonetheless because it is the law. When we get tired of working we'll retire on the savings we've accumulated from years of hard work. I like my version of life a hell of a lot more than yours.

[Gregg]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

Among others, mine, because I have to pay more to make up for what you don't pay, more to bear the cost of finding the % of idiots like you who make the entire enforcement infrastructure necessary, more to pay the extra costs of maintaining who knows how many extra clerks, bailiffs, Judges and such who have told you ad infinitum that your stupid theory is wrong and pretty much everything that you make that is not mentioned as as exception somewhere is indeed at least gross income and more for the extra federal prison we have to house your sorry ass in when you finally go all Ed:family stupid or Pete "the law means what I say, not what the courts say" and end up incarcerated just to discourage even more idiocy like yours from spreading.

Taxes are the costs we must pay to maintain civilization. Among the civilized world, the taxes in the USA are not high by any means, but if you really want to live in a tax free paradise, get on a boat and go to phucking Somalia or North Korea where they don't have much in the way of taxation, and you can be free of the oppression of the most stable government in history where the fact is more than half of the people don't pay any income tax, of the half that do the top 5% pay nearly half of what is collected and the bottom half (of those who pay) pay about 4% among them. I'm guessing that's where you fall.

Do we have another village idiot? Egads, do we really need one?

[Gregg]

And to the issue of when or how did you consent to be ruled over by anyone, well, I have to admit it's kind of implied, but the good news is you can indeed revoke your consent. Get on a plane, boat, rickshaw, whatever, doesn't matter...take your self outside of the United States, but this is important, you have to go to a nation that has diplomatic relations with the United States, at least for a minute, because part of the process has to be done within a US Embassy. So, go someplace with an embassy, walk right in, hand over your passport, tell 'em you don't want to be a US Citizen anymore and fill out a few forms, I believe there will be some waiting of a few days at least while they both process this paperwork (part of this process invomles making sure you don't owe any taxes, BTW) and maybe even try to talk you out of it, but hang in there and in a matter of weeks at most you'll be a non-US Citizen, and as under those circumstances it's likely you will not ever be allowed to return to US soil under any circumstances except perhaps after an extradition hearing, make damn sure you mean it. Also, unless you plan ahead, (hint, go to Israel and tell them you're a wandering Jew) you'll now be unable to leave the country where you do this,,,,oh wait, that's not entirely correct, in fact they may deport you, no, the more correct answer is you will not, unless you planned ahead, be able to enter any other country, which will be really a sticky wicket if as I mentioned above they don't want you're whiney ass either and deport you. I have no idea where they would deport you to, you may end up on Gilligan's Island if you're not careful. Eventually, of course, you'll end up in some third world country controlled not by a civilized government but local warlords, whose tax code is not nearly as complicated as ours (they come, put a gun in your mouth and take what they want), but the appeals process I understand is not nearly as time consuming as ours is. Have at it, send me a postcard.

Anyhow, back to the original question, as a matter of law, your consent to being under the jurisdiction of the United States is more or less implied until you do as I have explained above. Your consent to be governed by whatever state you live in, same deal although moving from Ohio to Pennsylvania is a lot less cumbersome. I suspect Ohio or any other state wouldn't matter to your situation, though. Maybe Florida or one of the states that don't have income tax, but still, until you go the full monty and renounce the whole damn country, I think you'll find only minor differences in the local level jurisdictions....

And what really chaps my ass about Tax Protesters is most of them are bitching about paying maybe a few thousand dollars a year, which for my money (6 figures in income tax this year after I paid 5 figures for an accountant to do them) is a pretty good bargain. I've lived in the third world, Sparky, and people with attitudes like yours who don't happen to be in the ruling class to begin with don't live very long. I've never seen a story about a tax protester in Cuba, for instance...

[LPC]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

Mine.

[LPC]

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.

Well, then you haven't been punished.

If you are sitting in prison, and you don't understand how you can be be punished, then you haven't been punished and are just hallucinating the idea that you are imprisoned.

Isn't a statute a rule made by some strangers I don't know claiming to have a right to rule over me?

Yes, and that is why you don't need to obey them.

You can do anything you want, and then you can not understand why you are in prison, and then you can pretend that you are not in prison.

[LPC]

People like Spideynw give sophistry a bad name.

People like Spideynw give names a bad name.

[Judge Roy Bean]

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.

Then you're simply a deliberately ignorant troll.

[Spideynw]

Part of that scheme requires you and me to pay a share. When you don't pay your part - others have to pay more or we all have to do without services. So everyone in the country suffers and is directly injured because you are a nitwit.

That would include the judge and jury?

[Spideynw]

People collecting Social Security (retirement or disability). Those who use roads, highways and freeways. The Army Corps of Engineers and the beneficiaries of all their work. Retired military personnel. Air traffic controllers. Forestry Service - you know, the folks who run the National Parks that lots of us like to visit.

So in federal tax court, when the plaintiff is the United States of America, the United States of America is all federal employees?

[Spideynw]

I asked who [is the state/city/nation] not what. Humor me please.

No.

You refuse to explain who the complaining party is? Why? What are you scared of?

[Spideynw]

Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?

Mine.

So in federal tax court, when the United States of America is the plaintiff, you are the United States of America?