Does any one have any dirt on DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA?

[NYGman]

On this internet website he posts the same sort advice he used to charge clients for individually; which includes his theory that if you don't submit any tax returns then the IRS will never notice you and you won't have any tax obligations. People who have acted on this advice have fallen into Very Serious trouble.

Actually, there are some people who may be paid with cash and earn no more than around $10k, that can follow this advice and would be just fine.

There are others that earn a bit more, who may get a paycheck and have taxes withheld, that also don't need to file, and can get away with it, however it is these people who may be suffering the most harm, as they may be entitled to a refund of taxes withheld and may benefit from the EIC, if they qualify. Not filing a return allows the IRS to keep any excess tax, and you will forgo any EIC.

This is what really bothers me about tax protesters, I am sure there are some TPs out there who are actually walking away form money they could get back, or credits they may be entitled to, because they believe for some reason, they are so special, and unlike everyone else in their country, they do not have to pay tax or file returns. If there really was some magic words, or a secret position out there that allowed anyone to de-tax themselves, I would be one of the first in line. But alas, there isn't such thing....

[Hyrion]

That is a rather simplistic summary

Thanks for the additional info. It always helps to understand more details of a process.

Thankfully I don't need that understanding per se.... it's more of academic curiosity on my part.

But I can certainly see how Jameson3171/Michael360 would find such information very useful should they choose to be willing to listen and at least consider the impact thereof relative to his/her/their position.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Paul John Hansen (!) has written some critical things about Eduardo Rivera, and about how his "courses" aren't worth much.

What's this world coming to when one deluded nitwit doesn't trust the rantings of another deluded nitwit.

Entropy?

[Micheal360]

You guys seem to bash everyone who opposes the income tax laws.

Stupid strawman. Many people here "oppose the income tax laws", at least in part. I'm one of those. What we bash is mainly people who profit in others' misery, by selling them bullshit which blows up on them when they try to use it. On a somewhat lesser level, from time to time we bash those to whom we explain the law, but who are too dim or invested in their beliefs to listen.

And yes, Rivera is a charlatan.

I recognize the fact that people, especially professional people, are being prosecuted in some sense for speaking out against which they feel is government corruption. Many people on this forum sidestepped questions, draw their own conclusions. They are always rights, everyone is always wrong. I have read enough regurgitated shit on this form. The saddest thing is when people try to discredit other people with outstanding credentials. I have said this before and I will say this again Edwin Vieira is constitutional expert and is respected by everyone except from people on this form which is just insane. And you know who I am talking about, because everybody realizes there is certain click of people on this form. And that little click of people need to realize that they will never hit the level of success as he has. He's not a tax protester, he is a constitutional expert. If you are going to try to discredit him, just realize how foolish you are. I would love for anybody on this forum to step up in debate that guy in person. That would be like walking up to Chuck Lindell and calling him a pussy and spitting in his face. There would be no contest. Don't ever think that our government is this honest and compassionate government that does no wrong. And with that said, I am done with arrogance of people on this forum. If you want to talk about pain-and-suffering. The IRS uses bully tactics and takes unlawful actions against we the people. You guys don't understand Jameson, but I do. He's not a tax protester. There was a point where he had to pay child support in his life and that left him strapped for money to support himself. So he had to make a decision. Should he pay his rent,utilities, and put food on the table. Or should he go without pay the government. He chose himself. He has explained his Department of revenue and IRS levy issues to everybody. I've only seen what he receives I never seen what his employer receives. So I looked it up online. The IRS sends a notice of Levy to his employer stating that they are legally obligated to withhold all of his earnings except for the ones that are exempted. Which he has no exemptions so that means he's working just to pay off his alleged debt. Now Jameson was smart. He fought back against this. He responded back to every single notice that he received. He has received a lot of them over the years. Maybe they were just hoping that he would not respond back and they could execute the notice of Levy. Jameson and I know for a fact that this is 100% correct, and shows how unlawful and ruthless the IRS actually is. So you people can think whatever you want to think. Read this article. http://freedom-school.com/not-a-levy.pdf Jameson Was desperately seeking logical reason why the IRS and the common revenue has never executed any of their Levy notices and it's all explained right here in that article. Believe it or not, I don't care, I am passing on this information show you people that you don't know what you think that you know.

[Pottapaug1938]

If Micheson3171/Jameal360 thinks that Ed Rivera is such an expert on Constitutional law, he should cite us some cases which have not been reversed and are final, in which the holding of the court involved squares with Rivera's hypotheses.

[NYGman]

Would you go to a gynecologist for leukemia? Would you go to a pastry chef for a sirloin steak? Would you go to a sculpter for a painting? You want some fine art, do you buy the Monet or just go with a collage fine arts student? Sure he may be a constitutional lawyer, but is he a tax lawyer? He may specialize in specific amendments, and may not understand the history and interplay of the us tax code and the amendments. To say he is qualified because he is a constitutional lawyer isn't enough. Finally is he even a good or respected lawyer, i think not. All lawyers are not created equally. Lawyers can be great in one area and bad in others.


Look i feel bad for you, it sucks not having the money to pay for the esentials. Go to court and get a reduction in child support. You opioffspring need you more than you know, and going to jail helps no one. i am sure the mother would rather something than nothing. You need to sort out your life like responsible people do, the laws are solid, the cases support the tax. Better to settle now with a parent plan, than go the way you are going. You will not win. No matter what you may truly believe, you will not win. Let me say that one more time. The argument you think you are making is not supported by the law which includes the case law. At the end of this, you will be worse off than had you settled and paid this off. Any "victory" you perceive you have won, will in fact just be a short, and ultimately costly delay of the inevitable outcome.

Brush us of all you want, it isn't going to cost us anything. I really wish you would listen to what you are being told, you will not succeeded in the merits of this case. No court will rule in your favor. there are already precedence set in court that go against you, of contradict the way you actually understood how they interpreted the law.

I really feel sorry for you, you come here to try and demonstrate that you know the secret to de taxing, and think you can convince a bunch of legal folk who actually know the law, that you are right. When real lawyers can't even do this in court, we are supposed to believe you've sussed it out. News Flash: there are
Much smarter people than you and i (AAnd many others on this board) that have tried to figure out a way around paying tax. I have worked with some of these folks and Assisted in writing up some PLRs, but at the end of the day, you may be able to reclassify, interpret methodologies in a more favorable way, defer, and use credits to reduce tax, you are still subject to it, you still have to pay it, and it is still legal, no court will rule otherwise.

[grixit]

You guys seem to bash everyone who opposes the income tax laws.

Incorrect. A lot of us oppose various income tax laws. The people we bash are the ones that continually lie about what the laws actually are.

[LPC]

I recognize the fact that people, especially professional people, are being prosecuted in some sense for speaking out against which they feel is government corruption.

You recognize something that is unrecognizable to anyone who is taking their meds.

There are occasionally people who are ridiculed, or maybe even persecuted (in a social or professional sense), for "speaking out." So, for example, lawyers and CPAs who have go so far as to encourage people not to file tax returns have been disciplined or perhaps even disbarred for what was considered to be unprofessional conduct. But that's not the same as being "prosecuted."

And there are people who are *prosecuted* for doing things like willfully not filing tax returns or willfully not paying taxes. But that's not the same as "speaking out."

So you believe that there are people who have been "prosecuted" for "speaking out"?

Name one.

Many people on this forum sidestepped questions, draw their own conclusions. They are always rights, everyone is always wrong.

I don't believe that I am always right. And I don't believe that everyone else is always wrong.

However, I believe that *you* are always wrong.

And that's because you're a special case.

I have read enough regurgitated shit on this form.

So have I. Often from you.

You cut-and-paste the most ridiculous drivel without ever doing even the most basic fact-checking, you piece it together in an incoherent and incomprehensible manner and then, when challenged, you lie about everything.

The saddest thing is when people try to discredit other people with outstanding credentials. I have said this before and I will say this again Edwin Vieira is constitutional expert and is respected by everyone except from people on this form which is just insane.

Edwin Vieira is a crazy old man whose opinions about monetary laws are respected by no one except the crazy people like yourself who desperately want to believe that there is someone with some credentials who will say the kind of crazy crap that they believe.

If you disagree, all you need to do is find a respectable court opinion or scholarly article that quotes him favorably. (Hint: There are more court opinions that cite me favorably than cite Vieira's opinions on money favorably.)

And you know who I am talking about, because everybody realizes there is certain click of people on this form. And that little click of people need to realize that they will never hit the level of success as he has. He's not a tax protester, he is a constitutional expert. If you are going to try to discredit him, just realize how foolish you are. I would love for anybody on this forum to step up in debate that guy in person. That would be like walking up to Chuck Lindell and calling him a pussy and spitting in his face. There would be no contest.

The word is "clique," not "click."

And I'm quite successful, thank you. In many ways as successful, if not more successful, than Edwin Vieira (I think).

And who the hell is Chuck Lindell?

Chuck Liddell?

Really? We're down to the level of professional wrestling metaphors?

Don't ever think that our government is this honest and compassionate government that does no wrong.

Most of us who are lawyers make our living by protecting people from a government that is *not* honest or *not* compassionate or *has* done wrong.

I mean, think about it. If the government was honest and compassionate and always right, why would we need lawyers?

And with that said, I am done with arrogance of people on this forum.

Fine.

Sorry to see you go.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

If you want to talk about pain-and-suffering.

What? You still here?

The IRS uses bully tactics and takes unlawful actions against we the people.

The IRS uses the tactics that Congress has authorized, and uses them in the ways that Congress has authorized and the courts have approved.

In the relatively few cases that IRS employees have taken unlawful actions, there have been reprocussions, either legal or political.

You guys don't understand Jameson, but I do. He's not a tax protester. There was a point where he had to pay child support in his life and that left him strapped for money to support himself. So he had to make a decision. Should he pay his rent,utilities, and put food on the table. Or should he go without pay the government. He chose himself. He has explained his Department of revenue and IRS levy issues to everybody. I've only seen what he receives I never seen what his employer receives. So I looked it up online. The IRS sends a notice of Levy to his employer stating that they are legally obligated to withhold all of his earnings except for the ones that are exempted. Which he has no exemptions so that means he's working just to pay off his alleged debt. Now Jameson was smart. He fought back against this. He responded back to every single notice that he received. He has received a lot of them over the years. Maybe they were just hoping that he would not respond back and they could execute the notice of Levy. Jameson and I know for a fact that this is 100% correct, and shows how unlawful and ruthless the IRS actually is. So you people can think whatever you want to think. Read this article. http://freedom-school.com/not-a-levy.pdf Jameson Was desperately seeking logical reason why the IRS and the common revenue has never executed any of their Levy notices and it's all explained right here in that article. Believe it or not, I don't care, I am passing on this information show you people that you don't know what you think that you know.

This is where it gets sad.

No, Jameson was NOT smart. He "fought back," but against the wrong foe.

Being caught between child support and tax obligations is tough. And sometimes it's unfair. But that doesn't mean that the system is unconstitutional.

[Famspear]

I recognize the fact that people, especially professional people, are being prosecuted in some sense for speaking out against which they feel is government corruption.

No, you don't -- because it's not a fact. You're just pontificating without offering anything to back you up.

Many people on this forum sidestepped questions, draw their own conclusions. They are always rights, everyone is always wrong. I have read enough regurgitated shit on this form.

No, you haven't been reading sh**t. You're the one who is spouting the sh*t. And, no, the regulars here have not been sidestepping questions or drawing our own conclusions. We've been supporting our statements with verifiable citations. You, on the other hand, have been dumping quotes that don't support your laughable positions and, as you are doing here, making assertions without backing them up.

The saddest thing is when people try to discredit other people with outstanding credentials. I have said this before and I will say this again Edwin Vieira is constitutional expert and is respected by everyone except from people on this form which is just insane.

Total BS. You are in no position to decide who is and who is not an expert on constitutional law.

And you know who I am talking about, because everybody realizes there is certain click of people on this form. And that little click of people need to realize that they will never hit the level of success as he has. He's not a tax protester, he is a constitutional expert.

Again, total BS. You're saying that because you AGREE with him.

And with that said, I am done with arrogance of people on this forum.

No, you're not done with us. And no, we're not the ones exhibiting arrogance. You are.

To arrogate means "to claim or seize without justification.... to make undue claims to having". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 63 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976); "to claim or seize without right... to ascribe or attribute without reason". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 77 (2d Coll. ed. 1978). A person who arrogates is said to be "arrogant," and the characteristic is called "arrogance".

You come across here as a pseudo-self-righteous, haughty, arrogant jerk. You think you know the tax law better than everyone else here. You are wrong. You know nothing.

By contrast, the regulars here do not claim to have knowledge we do not have. We can back up our claims. In the real world, other people come to me -- and to many other regulars in this forum -- for help and guidance on federal tax issues. THOSE PEOPLE PAY US BIG BUCKS FOR OUR ADVICE. And, guess what? What we tell those people ACTUALLY WORKS IN DEALINGS WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. What we tell those people ACTUALLY WORKS IN A FEDERAL COURT.

No, my friend, YOU are the arrogant one.

If you want to talk about pain-and-suffering. The IRS uses bully tactics and takes unlawful actions against we the people.

Yes, there are bad apples in almost every barrel. But it does not sound like that's really what you're talking about. You're not fooling anyone here.

[LPC]

Maybe they were just hoping that he would not respond back and they could execute the notice of Levy. Jameson and I know for a fact that this is 100% correct, and shows how unlawful and ruthless the IRS actually is. So you people can think whatever you want to think. Read this article. http://freedom-school.com/not-a-levy.pdf

Oh yeah, the "notice of levy" is not a "levy" nonsense.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

This belief is based mostly on ignorance, but is also illustrative of the tendency of tax protesters to believe in the magic of words and labels.

What tax protesters fail to recognize is that there is a difference between a legal interest or relationship and the document that creates the interest or relationship. So, for an example, there is a difference between a promissory note and a debt, because the promissory note is a document and the debt is the legal relationship created (or evidenced) by the promissory note. Similarly, a deed can be used to transfer the ownership of property, but deeds (i.e., documents) and ownership (a legal interest) are two different things.

A “levy” is an act, not a document. As a verb, “levy” means to seize or collect. As a noun, a “levy” is the act of levying. You can’t “serve a levy” any more than you can “serve a debt” or “serve ownership.”

The regulations are clear that a “notice of levy” is the document by which the IRS seizes property of the taxpayer that is in the possession of a third party:

“Levy may be made by serving a notice of levy on any person in possession of, or obligated with respect to, property or rights to property subject to levy, including receivables, bank accounts, evidences of debt, securities, and salaries, wages, commissions, or other compensation.” Treas. Reg. section 301.6331-1(a)(1).

And the Supreme Court has confirmed that a levy can be made by serving a notice of levy:

“Historically, service of notice has been sufficient to seize a debt, [citation omitted], and notice of levy and demand are equivalent to seizure.” Phelps v. United States, 421 U.S. 330, 337 (1975).

"In the situation where a taxpayer’s property is held by another, a notice of levy upon the custodian is customarily served pursuant to section 6332(a). This notice gives the IRS the right to all property levied upon, [citation omitted] and creates a custodial relationship between the person holding the property and the IRS so that the property comes into the constructive possession of the Government.”) National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 720 (1985).

“Appellant contends that the IRS, by using a ‘Notice of Levy’ form rather than a ‘Levy’ form, did not properly make a levy upon his property... This argument is absolutely meritless. Appellant ignores 26 U.S.C. § 6331(b), which states that ‘[t]he term “levy” ... includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means’ (emphasis added). It is well established that a ‘[l]evy on property in the hands of a third party is made by serving a notice of levy on the third party.’ [Citations to regulations, court decisions, and other authorities omitted.] Without exception the case law supports the use of a notice of levy.” Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 780 F.2d 210, 212 (2d Cir. 1985) (upholding levy on book royalties by serving notice of levy on publisher).

See also, St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States, 617 F.2d 1293, 1302 (8th Cir. 1980) (“The usual and recognized means of distraint and seizure of property is a notice of levy.”).

[snip]

Tax Protester “Evidence”

Tax protesters often like to cite the decision in Williamson v. Boulder Dam Credit Union, No. 97A014 (Boulder Township Nev. Justice Court 5/18/1997), which is an unpublished decision of a small claims court, for the proposition that there is a difference between a notice of levy and an actual levy. The judge in that case apparently got confused by the difference between a “notice of intent to levy” (which 26 U.S.C. section 6331(d) requires that the IRS give to the taxpayer before making a levy) and a “notice of levy” (which is how a levy is made in accordance with 26 U.S.C. section 6331(a)). And tax protesters never admit that the case was reversed on appeal, No. 98-A-388959-A (8th Judicial Dist. Nev. 9/8/1998).

Some tax protesters also think that there is support in a 1947 Circuit Court decision, in which the court said:

“Nothing alleged to have been done amounts to a levy, which requires that the property be brought into a legal custody through seizure, actually or constructive... Levy is not effected by mere notice.” United States v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304, 307 (6th Cir. 1947).

“Constructive seizure” is exactly what a notice of levy is intended to achieve, but the O’Dell court apparently decided that the government hadn’t served enough documents, stating:

“Section 3692 [of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939] does not prescribe any procedure for accomplishing a levy upon a bank account. The method followed in the cases is that of issuing warrants of distraint, making the bank a party, and serving with the notice of levy copy of the warrants of distraint and notice of lien. [citations omitted] No warrants of distraint were issued here.”

So the O’Dell court believed that a levy could be made by serving a “notice of levy” along with a “warrant of distraint” and “notice of lien,” and the problem was that the IRS had omitted the “warrant of distraint.” (The issuance of warrants by the officers of the IRS—and not any court—was authorized by section 3692 of the 1939 Code, which stated that “the collector may levy, or by warrant may authorize a deputy collector to levy, upon all property and rights to property....”) But the O’Dell case was decided under the tax code enacted in 1939, and at least one other Circuit Court disagreed that a “warrant of distraint” was needed. United States v. Eiland, 224 F. 2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955). The issue became an historical footnote when Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, because the word “warrant” was not included in section 6331 (which is the successor to section 3692 of the 1939 Code, and authorizes the IRS to levy on property). Under the 1954 code, courts have unanimously agreed that service of a “notice of levy” is sufficient to make a levy and that the holding of the O’Dell decision is no longer valid.

“In their complaint, the plaintiffs cite to the Internal Revenue Code and the supporting regulations from 1844 (14 STAT.107), 1939 (26 U.S.C. section 3692) and 1954 (1954 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 4555, House Rep. No. 1337). Each of these laws allows a ‘collector’ to levy on property to collect taxes, but requires that the ‘collector’ authorize BY WARRANT a deputy collector to levy. They also cite a number of cases which held that a warrant of distraint is a procedural requirement. All of the cases were decided by 1957.

“The law has changed. 26 U.S.C. section 3692 has been repealed and replaced by 26 U.S.C. section 6331, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to collect unpaid taxes by levy upon all property and right to property belonging to the taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. section 6331(a). The term levy includes ‘the power of distraint and seizure by any means.’ 26 U.S.C. section 6331(b). Neither the statute nor the implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. section 301.6331 require that a warrant of distraint be obtained, and there is no further distinction between the collector (now district director) and a deputy collector (now revenue officer).”

Leady v. United States, 74 AFTR2d ¶94-5225, 94 TNT 156-36, No. 92-0094-C (U.S.D.C. N.D. W.Va. 7/15/1994) (footnote omitted).

See also, Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843 (1st Cir. 1962); United States v. Manufacturers National Bank, 198 F.Supp. 157 (N.D. N.Y. 1961); Boyajin v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 714 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

[JamesVincent]

The OP was "Does any one have any dirt on DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA?" I think that questionable question was answered several times over, with dirt that Rivera threw over himself, and it has come down to the make fun of the short bus rider stage of the thread. Lock up?

[notorial dissent]

I recognize the fact that people, especially professional people, are being prosecuted in some sense for speaking out against which they feel is government corruption. Oh, just who is being prosecuted?? Specifics count. Many people on this forum sidestepped questions, draw their own conclusions. Your questions were answered, repeatedly, you just didn't get the answers you wanted, that doesn't constitute side stepping. They are always rights, everyone is always wrong. When you keep posting BS, then yes. So far to date you have misread or misconstrued everything you have come up with and been dead wrong on all counts. I have read enough regurgitated shit on this form. Most all of it your own. The saddest thing is when people try to discredit other people with outstanding credentials. When someone who does not have the training claims to be a brain surgeon, then they deserve to be discredited. Just because you have taken one case to the Supreme Court does not make you an expert in the field. I have said this before and I will say this again Edwin Vieira is constitutional expert and is respected by everyone except from people on this form which is just insane. Sorry, you are the one who is insane, Vieira is NOT a constitutional expert. He tried one case. His specialty is business. The ONLY group that thinks highly of Vieira are TP's and people who have no clue about what he is talking about because he tells them what they want to hear. The legal community sees him for the clown he is. And you know who I am talking about, because everybody realizes there is certain click of people on this form. And that little click of people need to realize that they will never hit the level of success as he has. What success(es), he makes his living selling junk to ignorant TP's who don't know any better. His stuff dies in court. He's not a tax protester, he is a constitutional expert. He's a fraud, he is another one that doesn't use his fantasy information to file his taxes, he knows it will go down in flames. He just sells the gullible idiots, that's you, the matches and over priced lighter fluid so that they can do a self immolation without him getting his hands dirty. If you are going to try to discredit him, just realize how foolish you are. I would love for anybody on this forum to step up in debate that guy in person. The true test of Vieira's, or any competent lawyer's, ability is to taking his show on the road and go in to court, and win, it hasn't happened with any of Vieira's stuff, and it won't ever happen because it is all the veriest of BS. He has made a point of staying out of and away from court for just that reason. That would be like walking up to Chuck Lindell and calling him a pussy and spitting in his face. There would be no contest. WTF, and why should I care? Don't ever think that our government is this honest and compassionate government that does no wrong. And this has what to do with you being a tax cheat? And with that said, I am done with arrogance of people on this forum. If the people here are so arrogant and ignorant why do you keep coming back. You are wrong in your beliefs, that has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you refuse to listen, you are not going to convince anyone here that you are right for the simple reason that you are so very wrong, and the people here are tax and legal professionals who do know what they are speaking about. If you want to talk about pain-and-suffering. The IRS uses bully tactics and takes unlawful actions against we the people. Oh, please do be specific. You guys don't understand Jameson, but I do. He's not a tax protester. There was a point where he had to pay child support in his life and that left him strapped for money to support himself. So he had to make a decision. Should he pay his rent,utilities, and put food on the table. Or should he go without pay the government. He chose himself. So you're saying that he was either working such a low paying job that they didn't take any tax out, or else was working for cash and wasn't making ends meet? Either way, there is something off here. He has explained his Department of revenue and IRS levy issues to everybody. I've only seen what he receives I never seen what his employer receives. So I looked it up online. The IRS sends a notice of Levy to his employer stating that they are legally obligated to withhold all of his earnings except for the ones that are exempted. Which he has no exemptions so that means he's working just to pay off his alleged debt. Now Jameson was smart. He fought back against this. He responded back to every single notice that he received. He has received a lot of them over the years. Maybe they were just hoping that he would not respond back and they could execute the notice of Levy. Jameson and I know for a fact that this is 100% correct, and shows how unlawful and ruthless the IRS actually is. So which is it, the IRS is taking ALL of his paycheck, or they haven't taken any thing, you can't have it both ways? So you people can think whatever you want to think. Read this article. http://freedom-school.com/not-a-levy.pdf Jameson Was desperately seeking logical reason why the IRS and the common revenue has never executed any of their Levy notices and it's all explained right here in that article. I will posit, that the reason none of the levies have been enforced, assuming that you are telling the truth, is that Jimmy is making so very little money, at what Burger King, Mickey D's, something lower, that he doesn't make enough to reach the bottom limit they can by law levy. So it more reasonably isn't anything to do with all his paper games and has more to do with him not making enough to meet the levy minimum requirements. Believe it or not, I don't care, I am passing on this information show you people that you don't know what you think that you know.

[Hyrion]

You guys don't understand Jameson, but I do. There was a point where he had to pay child support in his life and that left him strapped for money to support himself.

You know dude.... for someone who has claimed not to be Jameson3171 you sure are posting a lot of rather personal information about his situation and life.

Let's assume for the moment that you really are a separate person: I sure hope you have his permission of posting these details. Because if you don't: I absolutely would not trust you anymore let alone as a room-mate.

Not cool ... at .. all ... posting such personal information without permission dude - if you don't have it.

On the other hand, this adds to the evidence you've already presented that you really are - most likely - one and the same individual.

[Duke2Earl]

As I stated earlier, what this comes down to is this poster with multiple personalities has reached the conclusion that the income tax is just not fair. He had number of obligations and not enough money and decided that it just was not fair that he had to pay income tax. And once anyone has made that decision, in these days of the internet, he went searching for support and of course he found it. I doubt there is any proposition imaginable that cannot find some support out there on the web. The real questions is whether that "support" is worth the waste of electrons.

In actual truth there are very few actual sources of tax law in this country. Although actually more complicated, in short, it comes down to Congress and the courts. Everything else is basically valueless. That includes, web sites, articles, law professors, scholarly dissertations, and to some extent even the opinions here on this forum.... all basically valueless. The only things that have value at the bottom line are the actual results (not even the rationale or reasoning) of actual court cases.

Thousands of people have tried to argue many things, even totally ridiculous things about why they didn't owe income taxes... the fringe on the flag, admiralty law, numbers on forms... you name it. But here is the one and only important thing... NO ONE...repeat NO ONE has ever been able to convince a court that they didn't owe income tax. NO ONE...EVER! For going on 100 years now. Hundreds of different judges of vastly different political persuasions over numerous generations and always the same result. Is there really something confusing about that? Is no one... ever, not clear enough? And the current multiple personality dude isn't even clever enough to come up with a new argument... just the same old stuff that has lost over and over and over again. And no, based on these results no one is going to be able to convince the IRS that they don't owe income taxes. They may move incredibly slowly but the result will be the same. And no one, the IRS, the courts, the Massachusetts tax people...no one owes anybody an explanation or refutation...all you are entitled to get is a result.

So despite the fact that folks here just love arguing about how many angels can reside on the head of a pin and direct and indirect and the deep implications of the word "including" none of it is really all that important. What is important is actual real world verifiable results. The value of this website at the bottom line is reminding those who can't seem to get it exactly what those results really are. That and amusing those that love intellectual arguments.

And by the way, News Flash...... Life is not Fair!

[Hyrion]

News Flash...... Life is not Fair!

That - of course - doesn't mean one should go out and deliberately make it more so.

Ironically - that's exactly what the OPCA crowd seem to like doing to themselves.

[grixit]

You guys don't understand Jameson, but I do. There was a point where he had to pay child support in his life and that left him strapped for money to support himself.

You know dude.... for someone who has claimed not to be Jameson3171 you sure are posting a lot of rather personal information about his situation and life.

Let's assume for the moment that you really are a separate person: I sure hope you have his permission of posting these details. Because if you don't: I absolutely would not trust you anymore let alone as a room-mate.

Not cool ... at .. all ... posting such personal information without permission dude - if you don't have it.

On the other hand, this adds to the evidence you've already presented that you really are - most likely - one and the same individual.

One Individual, but two natures. That's the hypostatic union between a sovereign and strawman.

Wait-- which one is the strawman?

[Micheal360]

the taxpayer has 90 days within which to petition the Tax Court to challenge the deficiency

Given the venom Jameson3171/Michael360 has been want to release recently, I find it deliciously ironic that they chose to view "no garnishment in 90 days" as a "win" and - apparently - do nothing about petitioning the Tax Court to challenge the findings of the IRS.

If it's not too late already, if they don't do something soon, it looks like they'll be time barred from doing anything effective at all.

Sorry, it has been over 7 years now. Like I said already, Jameson Struggled to find a logical reason why the Department of revenue and the IRS have not garnished his wages. He has found the reason the other day. I don't know who wrote this content, but it's absolutely correct. And people just keep on regurgitating the same old crap on this form. Like people are reinventing the hamster wheel, you're moving, but not actually going anywhere.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

"from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Only applies to income that is not treated as a direct tax.

Mr. Chief Justic e White delivered the opinion of the court:

As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 ( II., chap. 16, 38 Stat. at L. 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was stated.

FRANK R. BRUSHABER Income was declared to be within the provisions of the 16th amendment and within the meaning of the Constitution.

Famspear agreed with me on this I believe. I believe we all agreed income cannot be treated as a direct tax. That's why in constitutional sense, the income tax is held to be an excise tax or duty. I guess that Famspear believes that a person who goes to work and earns income from a hourly wage can be taxed as an exercise or duty. I personally don't see how that's possible. The apportionment rule would still apply to wages earned hourly because it would be treated as being taxed directly not by duty or excise.

A notice of Levy is not a Levy, in order to actually execute a Levy not a notice of Levy, you have to follow the constitutional requirements. The IRS would have to establish a tax payers tax liability before they can obtain a Levy. It's all explained here: http://freedom-school.com/not-a-levy.pdf

[AndyK]

Irrespective of the other nonsense, the sock puppets are correct in saying "A notice of Levy is not a Levy."

However, they totally blow it after that.

If they were to actually read the tax law, they would find that a levy AUTOMATICALLY ARISES under specified conditions. The Notice of Levy is just that: a NOTICE that the levy exists.

But, the blinders-on TP/TE community refuses to comprehend this.

Simply stated, the sock puppets are attempting to justify their pre-determined conclusion that they don't have to pay taxes and/or that their magical procedures are somehow working. The puppets are wrong and, if they are actually significant enough to get someone's attention, they will finally realize this the painful way.

[fortinbras]

"from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Only applies to income that is not treated as a direct tax.

I disagree. The Sixteenth Amendment essentially says "It doesn't matter whether or not a tax upon income is a direct tax (there were strong arguments on both sides), a tax upon income will not be treated like a direct tax (even if it is). This amendment doesn't have anything to do with any other tax that isn't on income."

[Hyrion]

Like I said already

I thought you were done.

And with that said, I am done with arrogance of people on this forum.

Ah well... promises promises.

Jameson Struggled to find a logical reason why the Department of revenue and the IRS have not garnished his wages

Why not just ask the IRS?

I don't know who wrote this content, but it's absolutely correct.

I seriously doubt that. Just because you think you've found what appears to be an answer doesn't mean you've found the correct answer. And the answer you posted does not make sense relative to the actual Court opinions you've posted.

And people just keep on regurgitating the same old crap on this form. Like people are reinventing the hamster wheel, you're moving, but not actually going anywhere.

This is what's refered in the psychological field as projection and/or a lack of self awareness. With projection, the individual projects his/her own issues onto others. Let's get this clear, whether or not you think others here are posting crap - you simply have not produced any credible conclusion on your analysis of the Rulings you yourself have posted. And you "keep on regurgitating the same" in the apparent mistaken belief that somehow you can wear us down by saying the same thing over and over again. Sorry - it's not working, and it never will. If you wish to "win us over" you need to connect the dots in your line of reasoning which you have not yet done. And if you don't wish to "win us over" - then it makes one curious about your psychological drive to have wasted a week posting the same things over and over and not getting whatever it is you're looking for.

"from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Only applies to income that is not treated as a direct tax.

This is one of those missing dots I refered to. That it only applies to "non-direct income tax" is your opinion. Your conclusion. From "what" you have formed that conclusion from, you have failed to identify. You keep pointing to Justice Whites opinion but it does not state that. If you believe it states that, post the specific part of the opinion where you believe it states that and specifically bold the words that contain that meaning. Make sure to post the complete section of the opinion so that the bolded words can be read within context. Additionally, like I've quoted you above, making it clear the difference between your words and mine: be sure to separate your words from those of Justice White in a very clear fashion. The quote button is above the little white box you author your words in, so it shouldn't be that hard for you to ensure your words are separated clearly from the words of others that you are quoting. Specifically, in the list I see, it's fourth from the left.

I believe we all agreed income cannot be treated as a direct tax.

I don't recall anyone but you stating that conclusion. Your conclusion on whether an hourly wage is not an excise sounds like a Legal opinion. I'll leave others to discuss that.

However, you have not yet posted an opinion by the courts that state either:

An hourly wage is a direct tax and therefore can not be taxed

or

An hourly wage can not be taxed as an excise tax

So your conclusion is still missing the "connect the dots" requirement.