You know, I would bet real money that SteveSy is an enginer type, an analytical, who gets very frustrated when things are not organized in a neat, orderly linear fashion, where there is only one possible definition and one possible answer.
The messiness, nuances and multiple meanings inherent in the English language do not, can not, will not conform to his requirements of a have one, single, immutable meaning.
Yes, and I don't remember whether I've posted this link before, but the following leads to the commentary by Rod Borlase, J.D., who used to teach legal research at the University of Houston Law Center. The title is "Law School's Challenge to Engineers":
The messiness, nuances and multiple meanings inherent in the English language do not, can not, will not conform to his requirements of a have one, single, immutable meaning.
Quite possibly true. That would explain why stevesy cannot seem to understand -- no matter how many times you tell him, or in how many different ways -- that he has switched the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument, and that without that switch in meanings, his argument falls apart.
You'll never see me quote another "tax protestor" nor do I ever post "phony quotes".
Well, not since you got handed your head for doing so.
As seen above, your current bad habit is harping on irrelevant inconsistencies in court opinions.
Irrelevant only because you claim so....I personally think it's very important that our legal experts can't even read simple sentences and get it right. "Legal experts" words that are part of case law used to promote more inept legal doctrine. Inept legal doctrine used to frivolously shoot down legal arguments. IMO it's pretty damn important to know those who are claiming my and others arguments are frivolous can't even read simple sentences and in fact have blatantly exposed how inept they are. They certainly have disqualified themselves as being trust worthy source of information concerning our constitutional rights.
Oh and the bit about my head being handed to me is a flat out lie.....You've never caught me doing anything like that. As always you must resort to deceit and lying to try and make your point. If anyone is the scam artist and liar its the majority of tax advocates....
Last edited by SteveSy on Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
CaptainKickback wrote:You know, I would bet real money that SteveSy is an enginer type, an analytical, who gets very frustrated when things are not organized in a neat, orderly linear fashion, where there is only one possible definition and one possible answer.
The messiness, nuances and multiple meanings inherent in the English language do not, can not, will not conform to his requirements of a have one, single, immutable meaning.
There is no such thing as quantum law. It can't be that direct taxes must always be apportioned and then have a direct non-apportioned tax at the same time. It can't be that it's not a direct tax and but instead an excise AND be a direct tax and not an excise at the same time. There aren't any "nuances and multiple meanings" hidden within....only idocy and ineptitude to make such a claim.
CaptainKickback wrote:You know, I would bet real money that SteveSy is an enginer type, an analytical, who gets very frustrated when things are not organized in a neat, orderly linear fashion, where there is only one possible definition and one possible answer.
The messiness, nuances and multiple meanings inherent in the English language do not, can not, will not conform to his requirements of a have one, single, immutable meaning.
It's not just the meanings of the English language.
Justice Holmes wrote that the life of the law has not been logic, but experience. Sybil simply can't conceive of a discipline that would reject a logical solution in favor of an experiential solution.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
If anyone is the scam artist and liar its the majority of tax advocates....
Steve, the people who are teaching you tax law here in this forum are not "tax advocates." Your use of terms like that, again, betrays your motivation. For you, this is not really about whether the Federal income tax law is valid or not. This is really about the fact that you are OPPOSED to that law. You transmute that opposition into a delusional belief that the law itself is invalid. When people who really know the law point out the nature of your delusion, you then refer to those people as "tax advocates."
Steve, I would like to point out to you that hunger exists. Crime exists. Disease exists. Pointing out those things does not make me a hunger advocate, or a crime advocate, or a disease advocate.
Get a clue.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear wrote:Regarding the quotations from the various cases you cited, the only court that got it wrong was the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Francisco case. The quote from the Brushaber case cited in the Francisco case was technically accurate, but the Eighth Circuit did misinterpret what the Supreme Court was saying in Brushaber.
Do you realize how many cases cite Francisco and Parker (they did the same exact thing)?
Here's from the Frivolous Tax arguments offered by the IRS.
The Tax Scam Artist's Lie: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Truth:
The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.
Hmmm the IRS is promoting a frivolous position to claim a position is frivolous....ironic to say the least.
Tell me again about "tax experts"? Some of the people you promote and count on as qualified are morons. I can do this all day and night long but I grow tired of showing why I or anyone else should not accept your argument that "legal experts" have claimed I'm wrong. Not even the average TP fails this miserably in the reading comprehension department.
Last edited by SteveSy on Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
SteveSy wrote:I personally think it's very important that our legal experts can't even read simple sentences and get it right.
According to you. (Of course.)
SteveSy wrote: "Legal experts" words that are part of case law used to promote more inept legal doctrine.
That's not a sentence.
SteveSy wrote:Inept legal doctrine used to frivolously shoot down legal arguments.
Neither is that.
I don't usually go in for spelling/grammar flames, but it's awfully hard to take someone seriously who rants about the inability of "legal experts" to "read simple sentences" and yet he himself can't write one.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Steve, the only person here with a reading comprehension problem is you. The quoted material is correct. You are the one having a problem understanding it.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
I can do this all day and night long but I grow tired of showing why I or anyone else should not accept your argument that "legal experts" have claimed I'm wrong. Not even the average TP fails this miserably in the reading comprehension department.
Steve, rather than continuing to rant ineffectively, why not just tell us what it is you don't understand about the quote material?
(Hint: Steve, this is a trick question.)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
If anyone is the scam artist and liar its the majority of tax advocates....
Steve, the people who are teaching you tax law here in this forum are not "tax advocates." Your use of terms like that, again, betrays your motivation. For you, this is not really about whether the Federal income tax law is valid or not. This is really about the fact that you are OPPOSED to that law. You transmute that opposition into a delusional belief that the law itself is invalid. When people who really know the law point out the nature of your delusion, you then refer to those people as "tax advocates."
Steve, I would like to point out to you that hunger exists. Crime exists. Disease exists. Pointing out those things does not make me a hunger advocate, or a crime advocate, or a disease advocate.
Get a clue.
And merely poiting out or claiming the income tax is unconstitutional does not make me a "tax protestor". I do not protest taxation. The government can only "tax" when it has the constitutional power to do so by following the rules. Therefore calling me a protestor of taxes is inaccurate and incorrect. I protest an illegal act performed by the government.
Famspear wrote:Steve, the only person here with a reading comprehension problem is you. The quoted material is correct. You are the one having a problem understanding it.
So congress can lay a non-apportioned direct tax?
(btw, this may have been marked up by the quatloos gang as I don't recall the words "Tax Scam Artist's Lie" being in the frivolous arguments document provided by the IRS, but everything else appears to be the same.)
The IRS said:
The Tax Scam Artist's Lie: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Let's review:
We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear...
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
SteveSy wrote:So congress can lay a non-apportioned direct tax?
Your question is ambiguous.
If you are asking, "Can Congress lay a non-apportioned and non-uniform tax?", the answer is no.
If you are asking, "Can Congress lay a non-apportioned income tax that is applied directly to the American people?", the answer is yes.
Which question are you asking? Or are you asking a different question?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
And merely poiting [sic] out or claiming the income tax is unconstitutional does not make me a "tax protestor". I do not protest taxation. The government can only "tax" when it has the constitutional power to do so by following the rules. Therefore calling me a protestor of taxes is inaccurate and incorrect. I protest an illegal act performed by the government.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm curious -- and I'll ask this question only under the assumption that you are anonymous here in Quatloos and can safely answer it, which hopefully is the case: Based on your asserted belief, if I understand it correctly, that the imposition of the Federal income tax by the government is an "illegal act" (under whatever theory), have you ever failed to timely file a Federal income tax return for yourself for a year for which you had more than enough income (as I and the other so-called "tax advocates" define income) to require the filing of a return??
And that's not a trick question. I'm just curious as to how far you take this.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
If it's an income tax, Congress can validly lay it, impose it, levy it, collect it, enforce it, etc., etc., whether it is a direct tax or an indirect tax, and can do so without apportionment.
And that means that whether a particular income tax is (or ever was) deemed direct or indirect is legally irrelevant with respect to the apportionment issue.
Setting aside the aforementioned irrelevant question, a tax imposed on property by reason of its ownership would probably be a direct tax. Since such a tax is not an income tax, that tax could be imposed only in conformity with the apportionment rule. Same thing for a capitation (head tax).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
And merely poiting [sic] out or claiming the income tax is unconstitutional does not make me a "tax protestor". I do not protest taxation. The government can only "tax" when it has the constitutional power to do so by following the rules. Therefore calling me a protestor of taxes is inaccurate and incorrect. I protest an illegal act performed by the government.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm curious -- and I'll ask this question only under the assumption that you are anonymous here in Quatloos and can safely answer it, which hopefully is the case: Based on your asserted belief, if I understand it correctly, that the imposition of the Federal income tax by the government is an "illegal act" (under whatever theory), have you ever failed to timely file a Federal income tax return for yourself for a year for which you had more than enough income (as I and the other so-called "tax advocates" define income) to require the filing of a return??
And that's not a trick question. I'm just curious as to how far you take this.
I file and pay all my taxes but that's irrelevant. As I stated earlier I wouldn't deny a guy my money in my pocket if he had a gun in my face either no matter how wrong I thought it was.
Hardly anyone ever wins or will win against a entity that buys ink by the barrell and has unlimited funds to fight a case. I suggest that anyone faced with this circumstance, unless they're willing to lose everything, file and pay. That does not preclude me from showing or stating how wrong I think it is. As far as being "anonymous" that doesn't happen here. Demo and others here know where I live, if I'm married and my company names. Just about everything about me has been exposed as a retaliation measure by some here.
But anyway as I stated it's an irrelevant question.
I file and pay all my taxes but that's irrelevant. As I stated earlier I wouldn't deny a guy my money in my pocket if he had a gun in my face either no matter how wrong I thought it was.
Hardly anyone ever wins or will win against a entity that buys ink by the barrell and has unlimited funds to fight a case. I suggest that anyone faced with this circumstance, unless they're willing to lose everything, file and pay. That does not preclude me from showing or stating how wrong I think it is. As far as being "anonymous" that doesn't happen here. Demo and others here know where I live, if I'm married and my company names. Just about everything about me has been exposed as a retaliation measure by some here.
But anyway as I stated it's an irrelevant question.
OK, fair enough. I respect what you are saying, especially since you say that some people have some personal information on you. You would have every right to tell me to mind my own business, and I respect your answer.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
SteveSy wrote:
There is no such thing as quantum law. It can't be that direct taxes must always be apportioned and then have a direct non-apportioned tax at the same time. It can't be that it's not a direct tax and but instead an excise AND be a direct tax and not an excise at the same time. There aren't any "nuances and multiple meanings" hidden within....only idocy and ineptitude to make such a claim.
Check this out, stevesy. The SC said you can have a "direct tax on income" and must not "take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts" at the same time.
I know what they meant, do you?
...the purpose [of the Amendment] was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes.