Fair trial

[grixit]

And we've passed 100 posts again in 2 days. My spider sense is numb.

[Thule]

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

Why should they do that? To keep you happy? To prove their independence? Or because you just feel that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and your special, snow-flakey feelings must be protected.

Grow up.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I don't think it's snowflakey feelings, it's just an erroneous belief that he is right and most others are wrong. It wouldn't matter if the belief was to do with taxes, the earth being flat or the interpretation of the Koran. He and a few like him "have" to be right and everyone else is wrong. He then goes off to find "proof" that he is correct. Where this inadequacy derives from is a mystery of human nature and realms of psychology. Further, consider the consequences if he were right. How does it help him? He will still have to pay tax because the corrupt government will force him to. If he doesn't, the corrupt government will conspire to jail him. He has all the answers already set up for when it doesn't work out, but he's still "RIGHT" which is all that matters to him. The problem for us (society) is that these beliefs extend to idiots like the Kanes and McVeigh and that affects us. Keep bleating on about taxes being illegal on some forum with five members and I won't care; try selling the system to others and I'll take an interest and help stop you.

[Quixote]

I think my calculator must be corrupt. I have carefully explained to it that in all calculations on my Form 1040, 2 + 2 = 3, but it insists on saying the answer is 4.

[Brandybuck]

My other thread was leading up to how I can get a fair trial. Anyways, from another direction, how can I get a fair tax trial when the judge is employed by the plaintiff?

This is the way it has been since the days of Hammurabi. Court systems are a branch of government usually staffed by government employees. That this is also true in the U.S. is not at all remarkable. A system where tax cases went to third party arbitrater would be interesting, but it's not the system we have.

You seem to be operating under the unstated proposition that the government may not bring any cases at all to court. This is absurd. Do you think it's unfair to murderers that District Attorneys are government employees?

[Gregg]

You seem to be operating under the unstated proposition that the government may not bring any cases at all to court. This is absurd. Do you think it's unfair to murderers that District Attorneys are government employees?

If he says yes can we kill him and be done with it?

[Gregg]

I see his guru has already done his best imitation ever of the Iraqi Air Force channeling the French Army and gone back to his censored radio show...

[Omne]

He will still have to pay tax because the corrupt government will force him to. If he doesn't, the corrupt government will conspire to jail him. He has all the answers already set up for when it doesn't work out, but he's still "RIGHT" which is all that matters to him.

Which reminds me of a comment made by a protester I worked in the early 90s. We had taken a second home and the IRS took his homestead. His comment was " I may be right, but it's not doing me a damn bit of good." Then he paid both tax bills in full to get his properties back. The dumb thing was that the liability was based on capital gains from stock sales. Since he wouldn't file a return nobody had any idea of what his basis was. In all likelihood if he had just filed the returns he probably would have only owed a fraction of what he ended up paying.

[Spideynw]

Do you think it's unfair to murderers that District Attorneys are government employees?

Accused murderers. I think it is an unfair trial since the judge works for the opposing party. You don't? (hint: recently there have been quite a few people found innocent after having been found guilty of violent crimes like rape/murder/theft).

[Spideynw]

Keep bleating on about taxes being illegal on some forum with five members and I won't care; try selling the system to others and I'll take an interest and help stop you.

This thread is about getting a fair trial. I don't see how a trial can be fair when the judge works for the opposing party.

[Spideynw]

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

Why should they do that? To keep you happy? To prove their independence? Or because you just feel that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and your special, snow-flakey feelings must be protected.

Grow up.

Everyone keeps pointing out that it must be fair, because in a few special cases the courts have ruled on the side of the taxpayer. I am just pointing out, using the same logic, they are not fair because they have not ruled that no one is a taxpayer.

(Hint: the results do not determine whether or not the trial was fair)

Get a brain

[Spideynw]

Which reminds me of a comment made by a protester I worked in the early 90s. We had taken a second home and the IRS took his homestead. His comment was " I may be right, but it's not doing me a damn bit of good." Then he paid both tax bills in full to get his properties back. The dumb thing was that the liability was based on capital gains from stock sales. Since he wouldn't file a return nobody had any idea of what his basis was. In all likelihood if he had just filed the returns he probably would have only owed a fraction of what he ended up paying.

We'll never know, because in either case, he could not get a fair trial. My guess is, that if he got a fair trial, he would have owed nothing.

[iplawyer]

Which reminds me of a comment made by a protester I worked in the early 90s. We had taken a second home and the IRS took his homestead. His comment was " I may be right, but it's not doing me a damn bit of good." Then he paid both tax bills in full to get his properties back. The dumb thing was that the liability was based on capital gains from stock sales. Since he wouldn't file a return nobody had any idea of what his basis was. In all likelihood if he had just filed the returns he probably would have only owed a fraction of what he ended up paying.

We'll never know, because in either case, he could not get a fair trial. My guess is, that if he got a fair trial, he would have owed nothing.

And your guess would have been wrong. Nitwit.

It's been a good week. I'm going home tonight to my second home to crack a nice bottle of something good and have a nice steak. Its all bought with after tax dollars.

You - you'll go home to your 40 year old single wide and kick the cock roaches out of the cracks. Have fun you enlightened one.

Has anyone ever pointed out to these nitwits that if their stupid theories were right - Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would use them? Geez - they think they know more than people who have billions of dollars at stake? It is amazing to me that folks with only 2 pennies to rub together spend so much time on tax denial. Hell - it seems like most of them make so little that they wouldn't owe a dime anyway. And if they have kids - they'd probably get money back.

[wserra]

I think it is an unfair trial since the judge works for the opposing party.
...
I don't see how a trial can be fair when the judge works for the opposing party.
...
they are not fair
...
he could not get a fair trial

From four different posts, all within eight minutes.

Nothing quite so tiresome as someone with so little to say that he says the same thing, over and over and over.

[Famspear]

Everyone keeps pointing out that it must be fair, because in a few special cases the courts have ruled on the side of the taxpayer. I am just pointing out, using the same logic, they are not fair because they have not ruled that no one is a taxpayer.

(Hint: the results do not determine whether or not the trial was fair)

Get a brain

Not much of what Spidey writes makes much sense. But that definitely makes absolutely no sense.

The first sentence is wrong. We are not pointing out that "in a few special cases" the courts have ruled on the side of the taxpayer. What we are pointing out is that taxpayers win frequently. Not in a majority of cases, not in every case, but frequently -- not just "in a few special cases".

The statement that cases are "not fair" because the courts "have not ruled that no one is a taxpayer" is complete gibberish. A ruling that "no one is a taxpayer" would make no sense. Why would a court rule that way? It's not the law -- so there is no reason for a court to rule that way.

Is Spidey implying that he believes that "out of fairness, the courts should occasionally rule that no one is taxpayer, so that there will be some fairness -- even though it's not the law"????

The statement that "the results do not determine whether or not the trial was fair" also makes no sense in this context.

Spidey's specious argument is, essentially, that the judge works for the same people who are prosecuting the case against the taxpayer, and that therefore the process isn't fair. We have already demonstrated that this is not correct. The judge does not work for the prosecution. Spidey is equivocating on the meaning of the word "government." The term for Spidey's fallacy is whole word equivocation.

I also note that Spidey is clinging tenaciously to his illogical "reasoning" -- even after his "reasoning" has been exposed as illogical. He simply ignores the our responses and sticks to his own illogical train of thought.

In other words, we have some trollish characteristics in Spidey.

[Repaired]

Spidy,

I really have to reflect on your sense of logic and reason here. First off, I have to commend everyone on letting Spidy know that he would get a fair trail should it come down to that, but he doesn't believe it and he is certainly taking a heavy road that will lead to an erroneous conclusion.

But think about it this way Spidy. Even if you were correct, that would mean that the courts were corrupt. Now in a corrupt court, what in the world would make you believe that they would rule in your favor? Do you have any idea how much time and effort you would get in going no where? And that you would bang your head so hard against the wall, your nose would be on the back of your head.

Do you have any sense of logic and reasoning at all? Either A) you get a fair trial and you will lose or B) the Courts are corrupt and you will lose. Now, which road are you going to pick? A or B?

I will take it one step further, I am not a betting man, but I would definitely bet you 500 dollars (which you probably do not have to spare) that you would lose because i would have a 100% chance of winning.

So, what's wrong with this picture? Why are you even arguing the point? Its totally senseless? And there are people here that can probably help you turn your life around instead of staying on the same road to destruction you are on now. Currently its only now a matter of time. You can change that today if you wanted to. Its one thing to think that you are fighting a corruption battle, that may be noble, but after 200 years of settled law, corruption is a little out of the zone of reality. However, if you insist in being in that zone, then maybe just accepting the corruption might lend yourself a little more freedom in your life as a cost of being a citizen here. Otherwise, I see nothing short of your freedom taken away from you in every sense of the word.

I was taken for a long time. Eventually you begin to see how wrong you (meaning myself) and everyone else in the tax denier movement actually is. Unless of course, you don't really care to be honest with yourself and overcome the emotional sales pitch you have been given (all the Constitutional and patriotic founding fathers crap) all this time.

[grixit]

I think it is an unfair trial since the judge works for the opposing party.
...
I don't see how a trial can be fair when the judge works for the opposing party.
...
they are not fair
...
he could not get a fair trial

From four different posts, all within eight minutes.

Nothing quite so tiresome as someone with so little to say that he says the same thing, over and over and over.

Next he'll hold his breath until he turns blue.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Keep bleating on about taxes being illegal on some forum with five members and I won't care; try selling the system to others and I'll take an interest and help stop you.

This thread is about getting a fair trial. I don't see how a trial can be fair when the judge works for the opposing party.

Most of us would believe you would get a fair trial within the US court system. But as you believe you are right and most other people are wrong, plus you believe the judge works for one side, then you believe you won't get a fair trial. So what you think will always be true for you. Most of the rest of the population (like 99.999%) disagree with you. So by your view you won't get a fair trial, by everyone elses' view you will.

[Thule]

So if a pee-wee league team played 100 games against the Packers, the pee-wees should at least win a couple of games to prove that everything was fair and square.

[The Operative]

So if a pee-wee league team played 100 games against the Packers, the pee-wees should at least win a couple of games to prove that everything was fair and square.

Not quite. In Spidey's mind, the game wouldn't be fair because the referees are hired by the NFL and are therefore biased for the NFL. Even if the pee-wee league team won 40 out of 100 games, the losing percentage is evidence of the referee's bias and therefore not fair. Of course, everyone here except for Spidey knows the above reasoning is ridiculous.