An essence of the tax protester mentality

[Famspear]

Posted by "admin" on 27 August 2007 at http://www.losthorizons.com in the thread entitled "Ninth Circuit Decides Hendrickson Summons Case":

I suggest you all read the material at http://www.losthorizons.com/IntroAppellateBrief.pdf thoroughly and carefully. Then see http://www.losthorizons.com/smallthreejudgeruling.jpg and read thoroughly and carefully through http://www.losthorizons.com/postenbancpetition.pdf . Then decide for yourselves whether I'm right or the courts are right...

The fundamental conceptual flaw behind this verbiage -- "decide for yourselves whether I'm right or the courts are right" -- is close to the essence of what makes a tax protester a tax protester.

[Joey Smith]

Note to Pete ("admin"): For all practical purposes, the courts are always right.

[RyanMcC]

Note to Pete ("admin"): For all practical purposes, the courts are always right.

While that should be as obvious as the Earth being round, some people you just can't reach:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

[ASITStands]

The fundamental conceptual flaw behind this verbiage -- "decide for yourselves whether I'm right or the courts are right" -- is close to the essence of what makes a tax protester a tax protester.

Trying to understand your thought.

"Decide for yourselves whether I'm right or the courts are right."

If the courts have decided, it's more or less irrelevant. You either find a way to appeal the decision; you change your argument; or, you admit you were wrong. Or, I guess the other option is to keep beating your head against the wall.

Take another sip of the Kool-Aid!

One of the things that amazes me is how tax protesters can continue to make the same arguments over and over, and it never occurs to them their argument might be wrong. It's always some magic words that weren't said at the right time, or the judges are all corrupt.

In my discussions with them there always seems to be a piece of logic missing. They'll read a section of code and come to an off-the-wall conclusion, and no amount of logic dissuades them.

Anyway, not sure what you thought was the fundamental flaw.

[The Observer]

I suggest you all read the material at http://www.losthorizons.com/IntroAppellateBrief.pdf thoroughly and carefully. Then see http://www.losthorizons.com/smallthreejudgeruling.jpg and read thoroughly and carefully through http://www.losthorizons.com/postenbancpetition.pdf . Then decide for yourselves whether I'm right or the courts are right...

Translation: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

[LPC]

The fundamental conceptual flaw behind this verbiage -- "decide for yourselves whether I'm right or the courts are right" -- is close to the essence of what makes a tax protester a tax protester.

I've seen a number of cases that I thought were wrongly decided and, in most of those cases, the "wrong" decision later became firmly embedded into the law and is now the accepted view. So I can understand the view that court decisions are "wrong" when an issue is fresh and reasonable minds might differ.

But I also agree that tax protesters seem to believe that there is "law" that is completely separate and apart from what goes on in the courts, and this defect in thinking is either created or compounded by at least two other problems:

1. Tax protesters refuse to admit that the courts have ruled against them. They make up all sorts of idiotic excuses in order to continue to pretend that their arguments have not been squarely and directly rejected, and then fall back on claims of ignorance, incompetence, or corruption when the rejection is unmistakeable.

2. Tax protesters fail to realize that, when several other people have made similar arguments and lost, their own chances of succeeding go down dramatically, and when the courts have been absolutely consistent in their rulings for the last 90 years, their chances of succeeding are zero.

Add those two ingredients together, and you have a sure-fire recipe for delusion.

[Nikki]

Your recipe for delusion is missing a key ingredient: total ignorance of what laws are

What the code section says is irrelevant to subject matter jurisdiction. Codes are not law. Subject matter means law, not codes. The court has jurisdiction insofar as Congress is collecting taxes pursuant to the enumerated powers listed in Article I section 8. With regard to taxes the government can: lay and collect direct taxes by apportionment, and indirect taxes by excises, duties, or imposts.

It's easy to prove a code section is not law. Even if the code says the exact same thing as the statute Federal law requires an enacting clause to make it law coming from an authorized source - Congress. The laws in the U.S. Code are unnamed; they show no sign of authority; they carry with them no evidence that Congress or any other lawmaking power is responsible for them. They lack the essential requisites to make them a law authorized under article 1 of the Constitution for the United States.

in Response Brief in Pete's Civil Case Posted

[Imalawman]

I was thinking of posting that very same quote. Hilarious. From reading that you can easily see why I assert that the key ingredient in all TPs is mental illness of some kind.

[Famspear]

ASITStands wrote:

Anyway, not sure what you thought was the fundamental flaw.

What I was alluding to is the delusion that tax protesters generally have: the delusion that although the courts have ruled overwhelmingly and uniformly on a given tax protester issue, the courts' rulings somehow would not be the "real" law, and that the tax protesters' own idiosyncratic beliefs somehow could be the "real" law. This tax protester way of thinking betrays a refusal to accept a fundamental concept of American law: To the extent a provision of the Constitution (or of a statute, or of a reg, or of a treaty, etc.) is interpreted in court in a real case or controversy, the law is -- by definition -- what the court decides the law to be, and the doctrine of stare decisis applies.

[Kimokeo]

LPC,

The courts may have ruled against them.
The problem isn't the ruling, it is the court.
If the correct courtroom was used, the ruling would have been different.
That is the problem with those who love this tax system. They rely on courts that don't have jurisdiction. The rulings from these courts do not bind on the court that matters.
The problem is finding that particular court.
I think it is called admiralty.
Personally, my most successful rulings have occurred in the court of tennis.

[Dezcad]

Richard Fuselier never ceases to entertain at LH. Here's one of his latest gems of logic and reasoning:

The question has been asked is why is your group making a not for profit claim in the courts of the United States. Here is the answer:

1. At common law the fruit of your labor is called property acquired by the right of accession.
2. It seems that government is allowed to tax profit under commerce.
3. And various court rulings have determined that some money is not profit.
4. Some of these court rulings is that property acquired by the right of accession is not profit.
5. So me make a not for profit claim (the exchange of your labor for money is not commerce).
6. I believe the code calls it a "not for profit election".
7. The Sixteenth Amendment was written to tax non us citizen individuals who were making a profit...but had figured out how to aborgate United States citizenship in an equity proceeding.
8. The commerce code was extended to the several states by specific statute and by Constitutional Amendment.
9. We use the not for profit election (with supporting evidence) in litigation to overcome the presumption of for profit activity provided by title 26.

A tax claim doesn't exist for citizenship anymore because of this reason.
The citizenship claim only controls the type of evidence used to litigate the tax claim.
Although at common law we recognize the right of government to exist and tax profit...and this was true in England also accordding to Blackstone.

However...that claim cannot be prosecuted by Judicial Notice...as we are not United States citizens. We have to use Federal Rule of Evidence 501.

No really revlevant to your legal actions unless you guys decide to make a non taxable income claim - using a not for profit claim.

[Duke2Earl]

People truly believe all manner of preposterous things. I think just about everyone believes something totally wrong or absurd. For instance, I believe the Cubs will win the World Series. We have politicians who believe that short term outside military force can resolve a sectarian struggle hundreds of years old when the actual participants have no desire to reconcile. Many of us seem to believe (based on our actions) that the resources of our planet are infinite despite all evidence to the contrary. The only thing that saves many of us is that we usually can determine which of our delusions will be immediately and directly harmful to us if we pursue it actively. And most of us can detect that acting directly contrary to the law will have an unpleasant price. For instance, Sybil has the full scale delusions about the law, but he is at least sane enough to realize that he can't win that fight so all he does is cry and moan about how unfair it all is. Bulten, however, isn't that bright... he is actively self destructive and isn't content to bring himself pain but wants desparately to spread the pain around to everybody he can con. It is a waste of time and energy to argue with the truly deluded. They literally cannot be convinced otherwise once they have emotionally invested in their delusions.

[Dr. Caligari]

I have been trying to talk some sense to them, but I guess I was doing too good a job-- I am now banned there (without notice, of course).

[webhick]

I have been trying to talk some sense to them, but I guess I was doing too good a job-- I am now banned there (without notice, of course).

And your posts are now by the user "n/a". So, you are not only banned, you're deleted.

[ASITStands]

Earlier in the day, the one called 'cassidy,' whom it is supposed is really 'Rachel,' suffered the same fate. You're in good company, Doctor!

For what it's worth, I always enjoyed your posts. Too bad they can't take polite dissent.

[Imalawman]

Earlier in the day, the one called 'cassidy,' whom it is supposed is really 'Rachel,' suffered the same fate. You're in good company, Doctor!

For what it's worth, I always enjoyed your posts. Too bad they can't take polite dissent.

It occurs to me that maybe the bitterness of defeat is settling in and they no longer want to be reminded of how fast and far they're going down.

[webhick]

Earlier in the day, the one called 'cassidy,' whom it is supposed is really 'Rachel,' suffered the same fate. You're in good company, Doctor!

For what it's worth, I always enjoyed your posts. Too bad they can't take polite dissent.

It occurs to me that maybe the bitterness of defeat is settling in and they no longer want to be reminded of how fast and far they're going down.

Kinda looks like a hissy-fit to me. I got the impression that John was one of the moderators against casually banning all dissenters...I wonder if he's up and left and now there's nothing stopping the other mods from doing whatever the hell they feel like.

[Dezcad]

Earlier in the day, the one called 'cassidy,' whom it is supposed is really 'Rachel,' suffered the same fate. You're in good company, Doctor!

For what it's worth, I always enjoyed your posts. Too bad they can't take polite dissent.

It occurs to me that maybe the bitterness of defeat is settling in and they no longer want to be reminded of how fast and far they're going down.

Kinda looks like a hissy-fit to me. I got the impression that John was one of the moderators against casually banning all dissenters...I wonder if he's up and left and now there's nothing stopping the other mods from doing whatever the hell they feel like.

FWIW, I noticed the change to the good Dr's posts to n/a shortly after the post referenced at the beginning of this thread by the LH "admin". So if I was to venture a guess, I'd say Petey did it.

JJB has been conspicuously absent from LH the last two weeks.

[Dr. Caligari]

For what it's worth, I always enjoyed your posts. Too bad they can't take polite dissent.

Thanks!

[Dezcad]

As I suspected, Dr C was banned by Pete, see below for the reason which was added to the "Trolls" post on LH:

*Dr. Caligari (banned by Pete, "court ruled ... working for pay in the private sector in one of the 50 states is taxable")
......
*Last update 08/28/07.

So you can get banned for accurately summarizing a court holding now. I guess it is easier to ban than refute.

I'd love to see one person at LH, or for that matter anywhere, cite any case where a US federal court ruled that "working for pay in the private sector in one of the 50 states is NOT taxable". Because if Petey could do that, he wouldn't have to ban Dr C but just post that case in response to Dr. C's statement.

It says a lot about the status of LH when Richard Fuselier is the most frequent poster. Methinks it is on a collision course with Sooey.