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

[notorial dissent]

Mikey, yes, I’m just overwhelmingly sure that Jimmy has been trying valiantly for the last 7 years to find an answer to his dilemma, by looking under every rock and checking with every crackpot guru and hazy website that he could find instead of doing the one of the two thing he should have. Either contact the IRS directly or else consult a tax attorney or a CPA, which he didn’t do.

Mikey, the only thing being “regurgitated” here are the legal results and facts from the last 100 years, that you don’t like the answers is just so very not a concern.

You are the one who keeps posting the same stuff over and over again without actually reading it since it refutes everything you have claimed.

Now you post

from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration

which is right, and then

Only applies to income that is not treated as a direct tax

which is the purest of BS and comes from no legal source, and is your main source of error.

If you go by the logic of the original decision, income is treated as being of two types, direct, and indirect. Under the original terms of the Constitution, any direct tax had to be apportioned and indirect taxes had to be uniform. The 16th Amendment relieved any tax on income that would have been in the nature of a direct tax of the necessity of being apportioned.

Strange, I don’t remember any such suggestion or agreement by Famspear, since among other things it would be patent nonsense. Again you are playing at word games. A direct tax and taxing something directly are not the same thing, you simply and absolutely wrong. Wages were always subject to an income tax as an exercise in excise, so your understanding is again wrong.

Again, you play word games, a Notice of Levy is issued after a levy has been made, and is created by action of law. You are quite simply wrong yet again.

[Famspear]

Famspear agreed with me on this I believe. I believe we all agreed income cannot be treated as a direct tax.

No, you're still not getting it.

The income TAX is general is treated as an excise -- as an indirect tax.

That has NOTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE BEING "TAXED DIRECTLY" OR "NOT TAXED DIRECTLY."

You clearly are ignoring what everyone else here has been explaining to you.

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 [sic] or duty. I personally don't see how that's possible.

Very simple. The federal income tax on your hourly wage is an excise. Therefore, that indirect tax can be imposed DIRECTLY on your hourly wage income.

The apportionment rule would still apply to wages earned hourly because it would be treated as being taxed directly not by duty or excise.

No. For the umpteenth time: The apportionment rule does not apply to income taxes -- regardless of whether the income tax is considered to be a direct tax or an indirect tax, and regardless of whether the tax is imposed "directly" on you or not.

READ THE DAMN SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT!

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 [sic] tax liability before they can obtain a Levy. It's all explained here: http://freedom-school.com/not-a-levy.pdf

No. It's not "all explained" at the freedom school web site. That's another tax protester web site, run by a notorious tax protester "guru" by the name of Peymon Mottahedeh. The web site has, in the past, promoted various techniques for evading the payment of federal income taxes.

See:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peymon-mottahedeh

There is indeed a process, a set of procedures, that the IRS is required to follow before levying on your assets. If you want to call that process "establishing the taxpayer's tax liability," that's fine. But the process may not be what you think it is. The process does not include any requirement that the IRS prove to you or persuade you that the IRS has followed the law.

[Hyrion]

people just keep on regurgitating the same old crap

Let's see if we can clarify this point so you can understand. The facts:

• 1: Jameson posted conclusion 'A' along with reasons 'X Y Z'

• 2: Others here either recognized what was posted and just responded as they had already dealt with it before, or had read the reasons and disagreed with conclusion 'A' so they posted their conclusions, we'll label them as 'B C D' (representing the different conclusions posted by different people)

• 3: Jameson/Michael goes back to step 1 forming a repeating process, reposting 'X Y Z' as the reasons for conclusion 'A' - to which the responses in step 2 are (at this point) entirely predictable

We keep "regurgitating" the same responses to your postings because you keep "regurgitating" the same stuff initiating the repetition of the existing cycle.

If you don't wish to keep going in circles, you need to break the cycle. You can do so by:

• A: providing new evidence to support your conclusion

For example, I've identified where you haven't - to me - connected the dots between the rulings of the Courts and your conclusions.

As an alternative to break the cycle:

• B: Accept that we do not share your conclusions and leave it at that

Ultimately, there's one solid truth in play:

• Your opinion, my opinion, Famspear's opinion, Fred Flinston's opinion <- none of those matter when it comes to what the Judges are going to rule in Court!

Our perspectives may help influence a Judge's ruling - but they do not define what the ruling will be.

Civilized people can hold a discussion and - worse case scenario - accept they do not agree with each other. That's all this is, a civilized discussion - one that has no bearing on what the IRS might do, what the Courts might do, what a Judge might do.

Can you accept we do not share your conclusions and leave it at that?

[nattyb]

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.

I have read enough law to understand that the NAME of a thing does not always mean what you think it means. That is why there exist definitions in the law. Unfortunately, the framers failed to define "Direct Tax" in the constitution- probably on purpose. So it is left up to the courts to ferret out the meanings of terms- and that is what all of these court cases amount to.

Setting aside the meaning of "direct tax" and "indirect taxes- (or imposts, excises, and duties)" for the moment, what we have essentially are two CATEGORIES of taxation. That is, the tax imposed by congress will fall into one of these two categories. The only significance of these two categories is to apply the constitutionally mandated requirement: All direct taxes must be apportioned and all indirect taxes must be uniform.

So, micheal jameson is making an error of logic. He believes the income tax is either taxed as a "direct tax" or taxed as an "excise or duty". What he believes simply does not exist.
What the Brushaber court ruled was that ALL income taxes fall into the category of "excise or duty". Therefore, if it is an income tax, the only constitutional requirement is that it must be uniform. And for further emphasis, if you don't understand that logic, the 16th Amendment makes it so clear even a moron can understand: NO INCOME TAX REQUIRES APPORTIONMENT.

And, you are simply wrong about those levies. The IRS does establish a taxpayer's tax liability before the issue of a Notice of Levy. They do that by the issue of a Notice of Deficiency and record of assessment. First learn procedure before you squawk about things you know not.

[JamesVincent]

We're still answering?

[Pottapaug1938]

Not me. If Micheson3171/Jameal360 hasn't caught on by now, he never will.

[JamesVincent]

Not me. If Micheson3171/Jameal360 hasn't caught on by now, he never will.

Was just wondering because, apparently, this dude has an issue with either A. paying taxes or B. paying child support or wants special credit for doing what he should be doing. Any of which would be guaranteed to piss me off.

[Micheal360]

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).

Again! Over 7 years and not one cent collected with NOTICE OF LEVY. To even think that the IRS can just mail out a notice to levy to a employee expect them to hand over ones earning is crazy! That is not the collection process. Here is the collection process: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-002-044.html But you will most likely disagree with the IRS.

[wserra]

Here is the collection process: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-002-044.html

Section 44. Delegations of Authority for the Collecting Process
1.2.44 Delegations of Authority for the Collecting Process

And then, of course, there is 26 USC §6331:

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.

Emphasis supplied.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Micheal360]

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....

Not reporting income by not filing a return is a huge mistake. You have to report all income and the IRS is suppose to determine if it is taxable income within the meaning of the 16th amendment.

Famspear has told me to go back and read the cases that I have post because I am reading them wrong.

What does this say?

INCOME TAX
History and Purpose of the Amendment
The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.

What does this say?

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19]

Again! What makes you think that income from hour wages can be taxed as a excise or duty?
The lower courts are gate keepers to the truth. It is easy to use the FRIVOLOUS defense rather then doing their job and make a discussion after reviewing the history and the purpose of the 16th amendment. Do you really think that the lower courts are going to expose the true meaning of the amendment?

What does this say?

During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of ''direct tax'' or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames, 7 Knowlton v. Moore, 8 and Patton v. Brady, 9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the ''incidents of ownership'' and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale.

Again! How can income that is earned by an hourly wage not be a direct tax?

[Micheal360]

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.

I am not saying not to file a income tax return. That is just asking for trouble. Why are you saying that I am saying the system is unconstitutional?

Again! We all agree that the income cannot be treated as a direct tax, correct? Income can only be taxed as a excise or duty, correct?

We all agree on with this, correct?

The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 .

Again! How is ones income earned by an hourly wage taxed indirectly as a excise or duty?

[Micheal360]

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.

I am not saying not to file a income tax return. That is just asking for trouble. Why are you saying that I am saying the system is unconstitutional?

Again! We all agree that the income cannot be treated as a direct tax, correct? Income can only be taxed as a excise or duty, correct?

We all agree with this, correct?

The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 .

Again! How is ones income earned by an hourly wage taxed indirectly as a excise or duty? I cannot find in any post that explains how it can.

And if Jameson did not responded back to the notice of levy not a Form 668-B that is a levy. They would have taken his money because he did not respond to the notice. Smart to respond to, stupid not to!

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. You keep all your OCD theories on the income tax laws and spend your life thinking about how the tax protesters are nuts. I have wasted to much of my life that I will never get back on this form. It clear that you and others would have nothing to do if it was not for this forum.

[Hyrion]

I have read enough regurgitated shit on this form.

In the 3 posts above you've added nothing new to this conversation - just regurgitating the same stuff.

As a result, I hereby incorporate by reference all previous posts from everyone else disputing your theories.

[Micheal360]

I have read enough regurgitated shit on this form.

In the 3 posts above you've added nothing new to this conversation - just regurgitating the same stuff.

As a result, I hereby incorporate by reference all previous posts from everyone else disputing your theories.

Again! Not my theory's. They are http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... ion01.html theory's. You're reckoning that my cutting and pasting is my theories? What part of the text I am I not reading right? The "the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained." That part?

Again! What part I am I misreading?

"tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct," What part that I don't understand?

Come on now answer! Wait! Are you saying that findlaw.com is incorrect?

FindLaw.com is a free legal information website that helps consumers, small-business owners, students and legal professionals find answers to everyday legal questions and legal counsel when necessary. The site includes case law, state and federal statutes, a lawyer directory, and legal news and analysis.

Are you saying that Findlaw.com is a bad source? You're right back on that hamster wheel.

[Famspear]

Again! Not my theory's. They are http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... ion01.html theory's. You're reckoning that my cutting and pasting is my theories? What part of the text I am I not reading right? The "the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained." That part?

Again! What part I am I misreading?

"tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct," What part that I don't understand?

You don't understand that the materials you are quoting don't say what you are claiming.

You are claiming that these materials are saying that your income cannot be taxed "directly." That is not what the materials say.

YOUR INCOME CAN BE TAXED DIRECTLY -- WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT AMONG THE STATES ACCORDING TO POPULATION -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE INCOME TAX IS DEEMED TO BE A "DIRECT" TAX OR AN "INDIRECT" TAX.

YOU are the one on the hamster wheel.

You have had this explained to you over and over and over and over again.

I am closing this thread.

If you start another thread on this same subject, I or another moderator may close that thread.

Make that WILL close the thread. - ND