Fair trial

[bmielke]

...
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. YET

Fixed for you.

[Famspear]

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.

Excellent point.

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

Not quite, Genius. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. As for the question of their independence, you only have to study a basic legal history of the U.S. to see cases where the Court has ruled against, and infuriated, the executive and legislative branches. Your idiot analogy would be accurate ONLY if the IRS itself set up the courts which heard tax cases, and selected the judges and justices.

The idea that the Court does as it's told by the other branches of government is likewise proved idiotic by reading the news. To hear you run your mouth, you'd think that the executive and legislative branches got along just peachy-keen. What makes you think that the judicial branch, if it were foolish enough to get into politics, would do any different?

To top it off, you have yet to propose any alternative which wouldn't be mind-bogglingly reckless. You REALLY want some 0-for-every time loser like Marc Stevens siting as a JUDGE on tax cases? You REALLY want someone untrained in the law, someone subject to political or other pressure, or even someone who is trained in tax maters but wholly untrained in judicial analysis sitting on YOUR tax case?

Actually, I guess that you do. You probably figure that, with a Supreme Court and the courts below it consisting ofpeople like, say, a feed salesman, a nail salon owner and a checkout clerk at the local convenience store, you could bullspit your way to a ruling that goes your way.

Idiot.

[Las]

The idea that the Court does as it's told by the other branches of government is likewise proved idiotic by reading the news. To hear you run your mouth, you'd think that the executive and legislative branches got along just peachy-keen. What makes you think that the judicial branch, if it were foolish enough to get into politics, would do any different?

Yeah, good point here. The fallacy inherent in Spidey's argument is that 'the government' is one single-minded entity. In fact, that's not the case.

What about when the Supreme Court (the 'government' according to Spidey,) rules against the President (also the 'government,' according to Spidey?) Clinton v. City of New York comes to mind.

[Imalawman]

I've witnessed the government taking the side of the Gov't for no rational reason.

Seems rational to me.

HA. Thanks, I fixed it....

[Duke2Earl]

These "people".... jeez!. They make it sound like it's some big time scheme that someone just invented to cause them to pay taxes. And then it's another scheme to have corrupt judges decide that the taxes really do have to be paid. What part of the fact that almost every government for thousands of years has had taxes and that people living in those countries had to pay the taxes is hard to understand. Taxation is not some sort of new scheme that the U.S. came up with. Mary and Joseph were in that inn in Bethlehem on Xmas eve all those years ago because of Roman taxation. For most of human history whenever the king wanted to build a new castle or fight the neighbor next door he raised taxes and people who didn't want to pay got treated a whole lot worse than anything we do to you these days. And tax rates are really quite low these days compared to historical data.

These whiney bitches simply do not understand how well they have got it.

[Cpt Banjo]

What about when the Supreme Court (the 'government' according to Spidey,) rules against the President (also the 'government,' according to Spidey?) Clinton v. City of New York comes to mind.

As does United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court (by an 8-0 vote, with Justice Rhenquist recusing himself) ordered Nixon to turn over the White House tapes. For us older geezers, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is another example. That's where the Court affirmed a lower court's granting an injunction against Truman's order to the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate the nation's steel mills.

[Imalawman]

Couldn't you argue this in reverse? That because federal judges pay income taxes, that they must be biased and are looking for just the right case so that they won't ever have to pay taxes.

Here's the "logic" (not intended to be a proper syllogism):

1. Judges are taxpayers.
2. Judges are appointed for life.
3. Judges salaries can never be reduced. Ever - even if the government were to have a financial crises for a year while a new revenue stream is set-up.

Therefore, why wouldn't a judge rule that taxes are in fact unconstitutional so that they would have more money in their pockets? Wouldn't that be far more likely?

In fact, Spidey, the US Supreme Court just in 2001 in Hatter reaffirmed, yet again, that federal judges must pay income taxes. ("We now overrule Evans insofar as it holds that the Compensation Clause forbids Congress to apply a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory tax to the salaries of federal judges, whether or not they were appointed before enactment of the tax.") The argument was that the compensation clause prevented judges from paying income taxes. Guess what, federal judges ruled that they were actually subject to the income tax. How about that? Doesn't really sound that corrupt does it?

If federal judges were corrupt, they would at least declare themselves free of the income tax. Instead, they did the opposite. Face it, the reason a judge hasn't invalidated the income tax is because it is in fact valid.

[LOBO]

In summary...

[wserra]

Face it, the reason a judge hasn't invalidated the income tax is because it is in fact valid.

[Pottapaug1938]

Another thing that spidey overlooks is that, under his il-logic, no judge appointed by the government -- federal, state or local -- can sit in an unbiased fashion on ANY criminal case. After all the government is prosecuting the case, and the judges are appointed by a governmental mechanism. Not only that, many civil cases would also be barred, such as one where, say, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is trying to stop me from building a toxic waste incinerator on my property near a residential neighborhood.

[Paul]

Another thing that spidey overlooks is that, under his il-logic, no judge appointed by the government -- federal, state or local -- can sit in an unbiased fashion on ANY criminal case. After all the government is prosecuting the case, and the judges are appointed by a governmental mechanism. Not only that, many civil cases would also be barred, such as one where, say, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is trying to stop me from building a toxic waste incinerator on my property near a residential neighborhood.

All of which explains why the Constitution gives judges life tenure and prohibits reducing their pay -- in order to allow them to be independent. I raised this point in the first post responding to spidey, and people have raised a lot of instances in which judges have shown independence of those who appointed them.

Spidey, the reason no judge has ever ruled that no one has to ever pay income tax may have something to do with the 16th amendment, but even before that amendment was even proposed, the courts had upheld the federal government's authority to impose an income tax on some people some of the time. They've never ruled the way you want them to rule is because the position was stupid 100 years ago, and is contrary to a very express provision of the Constitution now.

[Pottapaug1938]

Another thing that spidey overlooks is that, under his il-logic, no judge appointed by the government -- federal, state or local -- can sit in an unbiased fashion on ANY criminal case. After all the government is prosecuting the case, and the judges are appointed by a governmental mechanism. Not only that, many civil cases would also be barred, such as one where, say, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is trying to stop me from building a toxic waste incinerator on my property near a residential neighborhood.

All of which explains why the Constitution gives judges life tenure and prohibits reducing their pay -- in order to allow them to be independent. I raised this point in the first post responding to spidey, and people have raised a lot of instances in which judges have shown independence of those who appointed them.

Spidey, the reason no judge has ever ruled that no one has to ever pay income tax may have something to do with the 16th amendment, but even before that amendment was even proposed, the courts had upheld the federal government's authority to impose an income tax on some people some of the time. They've never ruled the way you want them to rule is because the position was stupid 100 years ago, and is contrary to a very express provision of the Constitution now.

Spidey couldn't care what the courts say, because they don't say what he wants them to say. In "Idiot America", Charles Pierce gives three Great Premises of Idiot America, the third of which is "fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it." In spidey's small mind, the fact that he and others like him fervently believe that they do not have to pay income taxes and that the courts are biased against anyone who says so, that makes his belief "truth"; and nothing anyone can say -- and no facts that they can cite -- will ever change that.

[Gregg]

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.

Do you even realize that in regards to every weak attempt at the arguments your making, saying you "didn't get" the Pollock decision is pretty much saying, "I know less about the law than a beagle knows about nuclear physics, but I'm just convinced that I do know more than this bunch of lawyers, accountants and various other pretty damn smart and pretty damn educated people, most of whom have made a career out of the practice of this stuff...."
When I rule the world we're take people like you who have to have every little thing demonstrated to them before they'll accept common sense, up to the top of very tallbuildings and demonstrate that the law of gravity is like the tax code, it applies to you, too.

[Gregg]

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.

Shuusshhh!!!!! We don't tell the serfs that.

[Gregg]

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.

I'm not sure what Constitution you're reading, but the US Supreme Court Justices in the real world are most definitely NOT chosen or appointed by the US Government, they are appointed (federal judges) by the man we as a whole elected to among other things appoint Judges and then have to be approved by a body of 100 other people we elected to take care of the details of certain things for us, (among such details is they make sure the President doesn't go on an ibogaine binge and appoint Marc Stevens as a Federal Judge. In fact, in Marc Stevens case, we don't want him judging the apple pie contest on heritage days at the fair, either.) and the way the nitwits are running things these days, they have to win that vote by a better than 60/40 split... and after that process is finished, to insure they are NOT afraid of much anything, society is for all intents and purposes stuck with them as long as we both shall live. You can't even use the "they found him in bed wth a live man and a dead woman" method to kick out a Federal Judge.
You don't seem to get (yes you do, you just want to be an asshole about it) that the government is at the top the same as the people and the judges work for BOTH parties in ANY case before them one as much as the other. If anything, one of the basic premises of our government is a bias in favor of indiviual rights, so a good argument can be made that when one party to the case is some part of the government, it is at a fundemental disadvantage.


I've changed my mind, I don't want you in my trunk, I'm afraid you'll make the tire iron dumber, so you're on your own on that trip to Somalia via Canada thing.

[Gregg]

For most of human history whenever the king wanted to build a new castle or fight the neighbor next door he raised taxes and people who didn't want to pay got treated a whole lot worse than anything we do to you these days

Stage 2 of my earlier referenced agenda upon assuming control......we're going "old school"

[Famspear]

Spidey is a bit different than most of the malcontents we see streaming through here. Unlike most of the others, Spidey does not seem to be too delusional about what the courts have actually ruled about federal tax law. His delusion seems to center heavily on the tired, nonsensical theory that the entire court system is corrupt, and that the courts would come to the "right" conclusion (that people shouldn't pay federal income taxes) if only the courts weren't "corrupt" or "not independent." His delusion is based in part on a misunderstanding of human nature -- and the misunderstanding all the more ironic, since he seems to want to "believe" that human nature somehow dictates that all these thousands of federal judges are corrupt because they were appointed by the "government" as he puts it.

Essentially, if he really believes what he claims to believe, Spidey has been confused in part by language -- he is engaging in the fallacy using language to "equate" things that aren't really equal.

Spidey's argument can be deconstructed and reconstructed more or less as follows.

An employee is someone who works under the control and supervision of someone called an employer. The employer appoints or hires the employee. The employee is controlled by the employer. The employee is paid by the employer

Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are part of the "government." Therefore, federal judges are hired by the "government." Therefore, federal judges are employees of the "government". Federal judges are paid by the "government." Therefore, federal judges are under the control of the "government." The Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department are part of the "government". Therefore, the IRS and the Justice Department are the "government." The IRS and the Justice Department administer the federal tax law. Therefore, federal judges are controlled by the people who administer the federal tax law. Therefore, federal judges are not independent. Therefore, federal judges are corrupt.

If only federal judges weren't controlled by the IRS and the Justice Department, the judges would feel free to rule that no one has to pay federal taxes.

Then I, Spidey would be happy.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
If only federal judges weren't controlled by the IRS and the Justice Department, the judges would feel free to rule that no one has to pay federal taxes.

Then I, Spidey would be happy.

Spidey-troll is incapable of happiness.

[Gregg]

I wrote it better somewhere else, but he, like virtually all tax deniers, suffers from the logical fallacy that somewhere in the law is something that says the whole tax thing is a scam and if they just need to find the right argument or magic words to not pay taxes. All attempts at thought from that point forward are governed by the bias that assumes they're special and don't have to pay taxes, and all evidence to the contrary is ignored.

Or as my grandmother used to say, "they's pig stupid"