Fair trial

[Cpt Banjo]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

That's right, because that isn't the law.

[Red Cedar PM]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

What about the Pollock decision (at least for certain types of income)?

[Spideynw]

How about adopting a rule that says in a tax dispute, the taxpayer pays half of the judge's fee and the government pays the other half. In advance. Would that make you feel better?

Let me answer differently. No it would not. The judge is still chosen by the opposing party. In arbitration, both parties agree to the arbitrator. If we both payed the judge and both got to agree on the judge, I don't think there would be a problem.

[Spideynw]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

That's right, because that isn't the law.

Or maybe it is because they are not fair trials?

[Spideynw]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

What about the Pollock decision (at least for certain types of income)?

I missed the point/question about the Pollock decision. But it doesn't sound like the ruling was no one owes income taxes.

[Red Cedar PM]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

That's right, because that isn't the law.

Or maybe it is because they are not fair trials?

Or maybe the trials are, in actuality, fair, the income tax is legally valid, and the nutjobs that say otherwise are consistently wrong. Nah, that couldn't be it.

[Pottapaug1938]

Now smart guy, let's have someone judge my case that is not a federal employee and not paid by either party. How about Marc Stevens?

That would be like Lindsay Lohan judging cases having to do with sobriety, or Mark McGwire judging cases involving performance-enhancing substances in sports. That would be like appointing Fidel Castro or Osama bin Laden to head a panel on political and religious tolerance.

You just showed your true colors, Spidey.

[Cpt Banjo]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

That's right, because that isn't the law.

Or maybe it is because they are not fair trials?

No, the sole reason is because the argument that no one owes income taxes is a brain-dead, frivolous, moronic, imbecilic, absurd, preposterous, cretinous, and nonsensical argument without a shred of legal support.

[Spideynw]

Or maybe the trials are, in actuality, fair, the income tax is legally valid, and the nutjobs that say otherwise are consistently wrong. Nah, that couldn't be it.

How is the trial fair when the judge is chosen by the opposing party and a member of the opposing parties organization?

[Pottapaug1938]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

That's like saying that no judge has ever ruled that We are the Emperor of the United States, whose Word is Law.

[Spideynw]

Now smart guy, let's have someone judge my case that is not a federal employee and not paid by either party. How about Marc Stevens?

That would be like Lindsay Lohan judging cases having to do with sobriety, or Mark McGwire judging cases involving performance-enhancing substances in sports. That would be like appointing Fidel Castro or Osama bin Laden to head a panel on political and religious tolerance.

You just showed your true colors, Spidey.

And you don't see the humor of having the judge chosen by the opposing party. Just ironic. Or stupid.

[Red Cedar PM]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

What about the Pollock decision (at least for certain types of income)?

I missed the point/question about the Pollock decision. But it doesn't sound like the ruling was no one owes income taxes.

No, the ruling wasn't "no one owes income taxes," but the judges effectively struck down the income tax as a large part of it was deemed unconstitutional. That's why the 16th amendment had to be passed. Either way it clearly shows that federal judges have ruled against the government on tax matters. The fact that it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say doesn't discount the fact that your main point (that federal judges can't rule fairly when the government is involved in the case) is idiotic.

[Pottapaug1938]

And you don't see the humor of having the judge chosen by the opposing party. Just ironic. Or stupid.

As stated above, Spidey, the judge is NOT chosen by the opposing party. And, also as stated above, the idea of someone choosing Marc Stevens as a judge in such a case is hall-of-fame stupid.

[Spideynw]

And yet no judge has ever ruled no one owes income taxes. Go figure.

If you mean everyone in the United States, then the answer is no.

Correct. No judge has ever ruled the income tax as invalid, in whole.

Regardless, how the judge rules is not relevant to whether or not the trial was fair. It is how the judge is chosen that makes a trial fair. And when the judge is appointed by the opposing party, it is not a fair trial. Duh!

[Cpt Banjo]

Spidey, you seem to think that if a judge weren't paid by the federal government, he'd conclude that no one owes income taxes. If that's so, how do you explain the fact that out of all of the law professors who aren't paid by the federal government, not one has concluded that no one owes income taxes?

[Red Cedar PM]

Now smart guy, let's have someone judge my case that is not a federal employee and not paid by either party. How about Marc Stevens?

That would be like Lindsay Lohan judging cases having to do with sobriety, or Mark McGwire judging cases involving performance-enhancing substances in sports. That would be like appointing Fidel Castro or Osama bin Laden to head a panel on political and religious tolerance.

You just showed your true colors, Spidey.

And you don't see the humor of having the judge chosen by the opposing party. Just ironic. Or stupid.

Maybe we should just rewrite the whole constitution and change 200+ years of legal tradition and precedence because of the rantings of an idiot message board troll who looks up to a scumbag like Marc Stevens. Because that wouldn't be stupid.

[Spideynw]

And you don't see the humor of having the judge chosen by the opposing party. Just ironic. Or stupid.

As stated above, Spidey, the judge is NOT chosen by the opposing party. And, also as stated above, the idea of someone choosing Marc Stevens as a judge in such a case is hall-of-fame stupid.

I'm not sure what reality you live in, but last I checked, U.S. supreme court justices are appointed by the U.S. government, and the U.S. government is the opposing party in U.S. tax cases, whether that be a branch of the U.S. government called the IRS, some other branch, or the U.S. itself. That means the opposing party or opposing parties organization chose the judges.

[Joey Smith]

Judges are appointed under the Constitution. That you hate the Constitution comes as no particular surprise, but why don't you just leave? Find a country where you get to pick your own judge.

[Las]

And you don't see the humor of having the judge chosen by the opposing party. Just ironic. Or stupid.

As stated above, Spidey, the judge is NOT chosen by the opposing party. And, also as stated above, the idea of someone choosing Marc Stevens as a judge in such a case is hall-of-fame stupid.

I'm not sure what reality you live in, but last I checked, U.S. supreme court justices are appointed by the U.S. government, and the U.S. government is the opposing party in U.S. tax cases, whether that be a branch of the U.S. government called the IRS, some other branch, or the U.S. itself. That means the opposing party or opposing parties organization chose the judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President - a taxpayer chosen by electors (taxpayers) who are chosen themselves by taxpayers. The to-be Justice is then presented to and confirmed by the Senate, a body of taxpayers duly elected to be the representative of the collective body of taxpayers.

So, the Supreme Court justices (taxpayers, likely in a higher bracket than you, Spidey) are chosen completely by a group of fellow taxpayers.

You seem to think of the "Government" as some large, monolithic body. This is not the U.S. system. In the U.S., our Supreme Court justices are chosen by the people's representatives. They aren't chosen by the 'government' (for example, they aren't chosen by the "IRS" or the DoJ.)

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
So you would be okay with Wal-Mart accusing you of stealing from them, setting up a Wal-Mart trial, and Wal-Mart appointing the judge? You would feel that is fair?

Apples and fish (not even a fruit).

Wal-Mart isn't a country.