The IRS shows Ed the law

[Nikki]

That's a strange question to ask about a group that's still producing material, still doing live shows, and still offering commentary

Wow, I gotta get out more.

Actually, maybe it's not such a strange question, when I consider my memory (or what's left of it) lately. I can remember a footnote I read in a case 20 years ago, but where I put my glasses or car keys 2 minutes ago....

Is anyone else having these problems yet?

What about spending 15 minutes searching for the car keys that are in one's right hand?

[John J. Bulten]

Wow, John, what a Freudian slip! Yes, it certainly would help your mental health if you actually agreed with me "that all the terms mean what all the statutes, regulations, and case laws say they mean." We have a couple of "realities" here: the legal reality and (for lack of a better term) the "Bulten reality".

Uh, if you need to find someone to whom to appeal to determine what the "authorities mean" -- OK, I nominate ... ME! Yes, John, and in rendering my decision on appeal, I hereby decide that the holdings of COURTS OF LAW constitute the correct statements of what the law is, and not what John Bulten says. Wow, that was easy. --Famspear

Not a slip at all. The "legal reality" is what the statutes, regulations, and case laws say. We have agreed that that reality is ambiguous and incomplete, to me at least. So we construct atop it our own opinions based on our experience. I agree with the words of the courts: but whenever you or I add to the words of the courts, we are adding our own interpretation, our own realities, on top of "legal reality". If my construction is Bulten reality, yours is Famspear reality (subject to the proviso below).

To be sure, you (probably) have greater experience studying the law in general, and I (probably) have greater experience studying these particular sections of it. (I don't think Kickback needs more information than that I've been admitted to the bar since I was 21.) But (as Reagan said), I will not take advantage of my opponent's inexperience. Experienced or not, in the country I live in, an ordinary person can still read the law for himself to determine what duty he owes his government.

Now you do not realize the illogic of your proposed solution (or perhaps you revel in it). You direct the appeal from legal reality to Famspear reality, and then from Famspear reality circularly back to legal reality. Well, either Famspear reality (i.e. your interpretation and rephrasing) is the judge, or legal reality (i.e. words of case law) is. If legal reality is the judge, not only is your appeal procedure silly because circular, but the words of case law are still ambiguous. If you are the judge, your interpretation supersedes the interpretive authority of the case law, against your oath, as I warned you previously.

Now let's be specific. When I tell you that the argument rejected in Ward is "includes is limiting" (an argument I also reject), and you tell me the argument rejected is "union states are not 7701(a)(10) 'States'" (an argument I derive from law), we are both adding to the words of case law. If either of us interprets the case to say something other than it says, we are breaking our oaths to uphold the law. Either the following case law is authoritative (with which I agree), or your interpretation of it is authoritative (with which I don't):

Ward reaches this twisted conclusion [that the Internal Revenue Code only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States] by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words ‘state’ or ‘United States” to ‘include’ United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word ‘include’ as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit.

the taxpayer's argument -- that the term "state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories -- was specifically rejected

You'll note that the argument the court specifically rejected ('include' as a term of limitation) is identical with my summary ("include" is limiting rather than expansive). It differs both from LPC's summary (the Internal Revenue Code only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States) and yours ("state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories). Here I agree with both the court's and LPC's: because the Code does apply to the 50 States, and "includes" is expansive to the same general class. I do not agree with yours: because 7701(a)(10) "State" does mean DC and the territories. There probably is some more language in Ward to be mined, but I believe it will support LPC's conclusion rather than yours (and please don't pretend you can't distinguish them). Ultimately, does the law mean what it says, or does the law mean what you say?

Credibility is not on the side of those who are compelled to the special pleading "DC really is of the same class as MD today because it used to be part of MD yesterday".

It's not too late to escape the spiritual brink. Your oath to the Constitution was sworn either to human law or to an extant ideal law. The former will betray you. The latter will save me.

[Famspear]

Dear John Bulten: Could you repeat that?

Seriously, you've been admitted to the bar since you were 21? What bar is that?

You are sounding more and more like DMVP, the recently departed. I understand that you would have a long way to go before reaching his, uh, level, John. But it's not looking good.

C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, John. -- Famspear

[Famspear]

Nikki wrote:

What about spending 15 minutes searching for the car keys that are in one's right hand?

I have one ALMOST that good. I once lost a credit card -- in my wallet. I couldn't find it, and had to have it cancelled and replaced with a new one. Then I found the one I "lost" - in my wallet, wedged behind another card.

Actually, I guess I may have done a few things like that even as a teenager. So, really, I've ALWAYS been senile. That's comforting. --Famspear

[Prof]

Dear John Bulten: Could you repeat that?

Seriously, you've been admitted to the bar since you were 21? What bar is that?

You are sounding more and more like DMVP, the recently departed. I understand that you would have a long way to go before reaching his, uh, level, John. But it's not looking good.

C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, John. -- Famspear

Bulten is Van Pelt:

Same reading comprehension problem.
Same issues with "research."
Same illogical, nonsensical statements.
Same outlandish claims (since Martindale lists no one named Bulten, I suspect he is not now -- and probably never has -- been a member of the bar either in the US or Canada).

SO: (1) Separated at birth?
(2) Multiple personalities?
(3) Borg?

My personal favorite is that both are aspects of one shape-shifting lizard.

[webhick]

Seriously, you've been admitted to the bar since you were 21? What bar is that?

21 = legal drinking age. bar = place that serves booze.

[Imalawman]

I'm very interested in learning what bar Bulten was a member of at the age of 21. That's very quick to go through undergrad, law school and taking and passing the bar. I'm sure some nerd has done it, but call me crazy, Bulten didn't.

You have any proof of this assertion?

Do you have a law degree?

Do you have a college education?

[Demosthenes]

80,000 people in the Florida Bar database, present, past, and retired. None of them are named Bulten.

No Bultens in the Oklahoma Bar either.

[Duke2Earl]

It's not too late to escape the spiritual brink. Your oath to the Constitution was sworn either to human law or to an extant ideal law. The former will betray you. The latter will save me.

You just keep thinking that. How long have you been having these delusions? ROFLMAO!

[webhick]

I don't think Bulten's talking about the same bar you guys are. The bar he's talking about has nothing to do with lawyering. He's been admitted to the bar (establishments that focus on serving booze) since he's been 21 (legal drinking age).

[Disilloosianed]

John made a funny, folks....

[Famspear]

John's a member of the Bulten Bar. He admitted himself to the Bulten Bar, Based on his Bulten Beliefs aBout Bringing Bold groundBreaking Bulls**t about his Bulten Beliefs on the tax law to GulliBle, Believing Buffoons who Burrow into his nonsense over at losthorizons.com.

Bulten Believes that -- in the event his Butt is eventually in the crack in a criminal case -- a jury will Believe that his Bulten Belief about tax law will rise to the level of an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. --Famspear

[Famspear]

John Bulten's voice (under eerie, mysterious, swirling music):

It's not too late to escape the spiritual brink. Your oath to the Constitution was sworn either to human law or to an extant ideal law. The former will betray you. The latter will save me.

(music fades up slightly, under the voice of an announcer sounding a lot like Rod Serling)....

You're dazed - bewildered - lost. Trapped in world where sound collides with color. Yet, this is no ordinary fantasy. This is the real, live world of ....

BIZARRO BULTEN BELIEF.

[Demosthenes]

John made a funny, folks....

Shhh. It's more fun to pretend he didn't....

[Dr. Caligari]

Wow, John, what a Freudian slip! Yes, it certainly would help your mental health if you actually agreed with me "that all the terms mean what all the statutes, regulations, and case laws say they mean." We have a couple of "realities" here: the legal reality and (for lack of a better term) the "Bulten reality".

Uh, if you need to find someone to whom to appeal to determine what the "authorities mean" -- OK, I nominate ... ME! Yes, John, and in rendering my decision on appeal, I hereby decide that the holdings of COURTS OF LAW constitute the correct statements of what the law is, and not what John Bulten says. Wow, that was easy. --Famspear

Not a slip at all. The "legal reality" is what the statutes, regulations, and case laws say. We have agreed that that reality is ambiguous and incomplete, to me at least. So we construct atop it our own opinions based on our experience. I agree with the words of the courts: but whenever you or I add to the words of the courts, we are adding our own interpretation, our own realities, on top of "legal reality". If my construction is Bulten reality, yours is Famspear reality (subject to the proviso below).

To be sure, you (probably) have greater experience studying the law in general, and I (probably) have greater experience studying these particular sections of it. (I don't think Kickback needs more information than that I've been admitted to the bar since I was 21.) But (as Reagan said), I will not take advantage of my opponent's inexperience. Experienced or not, in the country I live in, an ordinary person can still read the law for himself to determine what duty he owes his government.

Now you do not realize the illogic of your proposed solution (or perhaps you revel in it). You direct the appeal from legal reality to Famspear reality, and then from Famspear reality circularly back to legal reality. Well, either Famspear reality (i.e. your interpretation and rephrasing) is the judge, or legal reality (i.e. words of case law) is. If legal reality is the judge, not only is your appeal procedure silly because circular, but the words of case law are still ambiguous. If you are the judge, your interpretation supersedes the interpretive authority of the case law, against your oath, as I warned you previously.

Now let's be specific. When I tell you that the argument rejected in Ward is "includes is limiting" (an argument I also reject), and you tell me the argument rejected is "union states are not 7701(a)(10) 'States'" (an argument I derive from law), we are both adding to the words of case law. If either of us interprets the case to say something other than it says, we are breaking our oaths to uphold the law. Either the following case law is authoritative (with which I agree), or your interpretation of it is authoritative (with which I don't):

Ward reaches this twisted conclusion [that the Internal Revenue Code only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States] by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words ‘state’ or ‘United States” to ‘include’ United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word ‘include’ as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit.

the taxpayer's argument -- that the term "state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories -- was specifically rejected

You'll note that the argument the court specifically rejected ('include' as a term of limitation) is identical with my summary ("include" is limiting rather than expansive). It differs both from LPC's summary (the Internal Revenue Code only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States) and yours ("state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories). Here I agree with both the court's and LPC's: because the Code does apply to the 50 States, and "includes" is expansive to the same general class. I do not agree with yours: because 7701(a)(10) "State" does mean DC and the territories. There probably is some more language in Ward to be mined, but I believe it will support LPC's conclusion rather than yours (and please don't pretend you can't distinguish them). Ultimately, does the law mean what it says, or does the law mean what you say?

Credibility is not on the side of those who are compelled to the special pleading "DC really is of the same class as MD today because it used to be part of MD yesterday".

It's not too late to escape the spiritual brink. Your oath to the Constitution was sworn either to human law or to an extant ideal law. The former will betray you. The latter will save me.

John:
If you had any legal training, you would know that the holding of a case is not just the exact language it used, but the application of that language to the specific facts of the case. Ward was arguing that Florida was not a "state" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. The holding of the Ward case is thus not-- as you would have it-- that the word "state" includes something other that D.C. but we're not sure what; the holding of that case is that Florida (and, by parity of reasoning, all of the 50 union states) is a "state" within the meaning of the IRC.

The same reasoning also shoots down the main theory of CtC, that people who work for private sector companies are not "employees." The court cases that rejected tax protestors' reading of the word "employee" (including Pete Henderson's case) necessarily held that the specific job performed by those people was statutory "employment."

[LPC]

John:
If you had any legal training, you would know that the holding of a case is not just the exact language it used, but the application of that language to the specific facts of the case.

Bulten's incomprehension is demonstrated by a recent exchange on LH. Someone posted the entire text of O'Connor v. United States, 669 F.Supp 317, highlighting this passage:

Plaintiffs have filed a claim for refund of $2,952.38 which they allege was withheld during the 1984 tax year. The plaintiffs ground that claim on the argument that Dennis O'Connor is not an employee within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c). The plaintiffs' argument is without merit.

26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) does not limit the definition of “employee” in the corporate setting to officers of the corporation. § 3401(c) merely provides that the term “employee” includes corporate officers. Treas.Reg. § 31.3401-1(c) is consistent with the Court's construction of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c).

There is no question of fact regarding the plaintiffs' claims concerning Dennis O'Connor's 1984 tax liability. The plaintiffs' arguments supporting such claims are, as a matter of law, without merit. Claims against the United States and the IRS involving the issue of Dennis O'Connor's 1984 tax liability must, therefore, be dismissed.

Bulten's response was as follows:

'Twas exactly as we suspected. The judge can't out-and-out say, "Dennis is a 3401(c) employee", but has to mealy-mouth around the topic! The court did not rule on "includes" other than to say (as we all know) it is not limiting. The court refuses to admit "includes" only adds items of the "same general class" (26 CFR 403.5).

The Black Knight has nothing on Bulten when it comes to self-confidence even while his legs are being cut off from under him.

[Joey Smith]

Admitted to the Bar at 21? Gosh, that is quite a feat, especially since nearly all jurisdictions require what amounts to 4 typical years of undergraduate and 3 years of law school prior to even qualifying to take the Bar.

Or perhaps the Bar to which you are referring is: http://www.melchizedek.com/application- ... ership.htm

[John J. Bulten]

John:
If you had any legal training, you would know that the holding of a case is not just the exact language it used, but the application of that language to the specific facts of the case. Ward was arguing that Florida was not a "state" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. The holding of the Ward case is thus not-- as you would have it-- [strawman] that the word "state" includes something other that D.C. but we're not sure what; the holding of that case is that Florida (and, by parity of reasoning, all of the 50 union states) is a "state" within the meaning of the IRC.

The same reasoning also shoots down the main theory of CtC, that people who work for private sector companies are not "employees." The court cases that rejected tax protestors' reading of the word "employee" (including Pete Henderson's case) necessarily held that the specific job performed by those people was statutory "employment."

So you're saying Ward only applies to the specific facts of someone who thinks "includes" is limiting, and thus not to me?

[Dr. Caligari]

So you're saying Ward only applies to the specific facts of someone who thinks "includes" is limiting, and thus not to me?

No, Ward stands for the proposition that Florida is a "state" within the meaning of IRC 7701(a)(10). If it were not a "state," Ward could not have lost his refund claim. What matters are the facts of the case, not the specific wording of Mr. Ward's argument.

[Famspear]

Yes, but the Ward case does not apply, since the taxpayer's name was "Ward" and not "Bulten" and the court didn't rule that OKLAHOMA was a state. Yeahh, that's the ticket. I'm startin' to get the hang of this Bulten Belief stuff. --Famspear