Are there any nice tax protesters?

[Weathervane]

Thanks again Prof.

It hasn't been easy, and pulling through a crisis like this and coming out with my sanity and sense of humor intact is no small feat...I'll give myself that much credit anyway.

But you guys were a part of the mending process for me.

Mainly because there was no one around except the "I told you so" 's or the loonies still neck-deep in the koolaid to try and talk it out with. Neither of those groups were much help, to say the least.

All I can tell Gottago is...find stuff to laugh about. Believe me, its all over the place if you know where to look.

[Famspear]

This is an open question for gottago and tommygun.

You both really have lived through a lot of experiences. If someone who is just getting into the tax protester movement made your acquaintance and started reciting the tax protester lines and asked for your comment, what would be the most effective thing or things that you would say to that person to get that person on the right path?

[Nikki]

This is an open question for gottago and tommygun.

You both really have lived through a lot of experiences. If someone who is just getting into the tax protester movement made your acquaintance and started reciting the tax protester lines and asked for your comment, what would be the most effective thing or things that you would say to that person to get that person on the right path?

And you are specifically NOT permitted to smack them upside the head with a 2x4 to make sure you have their attention. Also, the use of JRB's cattle prod or any similar device is prohibited.

The confrontation must be resolved verbally.

[gottago]

RUN FORREST RUN

[gottago]

Seriously, I would encourage them to spend some time reading actual Tax Court cases to get a really good idea about what they are getting into. It is generally not pretty--even for those who are not tax protestors.

You are not going to win this fight you are taking on and stand to lose a lot. Life is too short to inflict this kind of misery upon yourself.

IT WON'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!

[Truthstalker]

CaptainKickback wrote

Also, remember this, Thomas Edison did not perfect the lightbulb filament until his 2,002nd try.

And thank God for that one last try or we'd all be typing on our keyboards in the dark right now.

BTW, Captain, did I understand you to imply that you are a former TP?

[Famspear]

Early in this thread, The Operative wrote:

I have never met a TP in person, so I can't comment on what they are like face-to-face. The TPs I have interacted with online were, for the most part, absolutely unable to admit they are wrong. The discussion can start out civil enough, but as soon as I refute some of their key arguments, the attacks begin.

I have also dealt with tax protesters only on an internet "on-line" basis (never in person or on the phone). I find that many of them, after quickly being boxed in with formal legal analysis, become very upset and start accusing me of being a "government shill" or "plant" or words to that effect. (I have never worked for the government.)

Or they rail about corrupt judges or other Authority Figures. It's fascinating how many tax protesters apparently are just using tax protester arguments as a psychological device to attack "the government," which I think in many cases is just an indirect way of attacking one or both of their parents. In many cases I think they're totally unaware that what they're doing is so transparent to others.

I also find that (at least in my "sample" of tax protesters in another place on the internet) virtually without exception, they seem to be emotionally at the maturity level of a 14 year old. I have found this to be true even of protesters who are known for a fact to be in middle age, and in one case a person apparently in his 60s. I find it quite odd to deal with someone -- who is older than I am -- who interacts as though he is a teenager, and a not-too-bright one at that.

[.]

become very upset and start accusing me of being a "government shill" or "plant" or words to that effect. (I have never worked for the government.)

Yup. Standard refrain.

[Demosthenes]

As I've said a kajillion times on this forum, tax protesting is not the disease, it's just a common symptom of a bigger problem.

[SteveSy]

I have been thinking about this question: Are there any nice tax protesters?

I have been dealing with tax protester intensively (but pseudonymously) on the internet for nearly two years. My interaction with tax protesters is that they are almost uniformly nasty people.

I know that's a vague statement.

I am just wondering what others' thoughts might be on this topic.

I cannot recall running across a tax protester who didn't respond to calm, reasoned analysis pretty much like a 14 year spoiled brat responds to a parent who is patiently trying to teach his or her youngster. In fact, the responses have led me to suspect that many tax protesters are indeed engaged in a transference (an inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship with that child's mother or father, wherein the protester substitutes me, or the government, or the tax law, for the parent).

The ones with which I have dealt seem to be constitutionally incapable of admitting their mistakes or understanding what is (in nearly all cases) the depths of incompetence they bring to bear on the subject of the law. They also seem to hold a deep, unnatural hatred for and resentment of Authority or Authority Figures.

Maybe it's just me?

I think you just described most if not all TA's, except you "seem to hold a deep, unnatural hatred for and resentment of people who question Authority "

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I think you just described most if not all TA's, except you "seem to hold a deep, unnatural hatred for and resentment of people who question Authority "

Steve - It's interesting that you use the phrase "people who question Authority." As I have said, the real motivation behind the ravings of many tax protesters is not that they have discovered that the tax law is invalid (they haven't; they just "believe" that they have). The real motivation for tax protesters is not even based on a mere "questioning" of Authority.

The real motivation for tax protesters is a hatred of Authority, an unnatural hatred of Authority. Psychologically, that hatred of Authority induces the tax protester to look for ways to attack Authority. One way to do that is to attack the legitimacy of Authority. The unnatural desire to attack the legitimacy of Authority in turn induces the tax protester to develop strong self-delusional thoughts and beliefs about what the law actually is.

I note your use of the abbreviation "TA." I'm not sure what you meant by that, but some tax protesters use the abbreviation "TA" to mean "tax advocate," which in turn is tax protesters' code language for "people who disagree with tax protesters." The concept is that anyone who disagrees with the delusional belief that the Federal income tax is invalid, improperly applied, etc., etc., etc., must somehow be emotionally in favor of the tax law or ADVOCATING that the tax law is "good" and, by extension, emotionally in favor of the Authority Figure itself, which is the government. This is another fundamental flaw in the tax protester thinking process.

In my dealings with many tax protesters, I have found (as I have stated before) many, many instances where protesters become very agitated when they find they have been lied to by fellow tax protesters (Example: Oh, my, you mean "corporate profits" isn't even mentioned in the Merchants' Loan case? You mean that the income ruled to have been taxable in that case wasn't corporate income at all? You mean the taxpayer wasn't even a corporation?) When the truth about "what the law is" is presented to them, they almost uniformly reject the truth and instead attack me personally -- ironically, by calling me a "government shill." The fact that they keep moving back to that attack on "the government" (the Authority Figure) illustrates the weakness of the tax protester's position and the faulty psychological underpinning of tax protester arguments.

I have found that it absolutely drives tax protesters bonkers when they cite cases like Brushaber, Merchants' Loan, Pollock, Butchers Union, and so on -- and then find out that the courts in those cases either ruled AGAINST the tax protesters' arguments or that the case wasn't even about taxation at all (often that the word "tax" isn't even mentioned in the case). It drives them bonkers, and they shut all this out and instead attack "corrupt judges" or "corrupt IRS" or they attack me personally.

Every tax protester who raves nonsense about the validity or meaning of the tax law, or the meaning of "income", or "state", or "includes", or "wages", or "employee" and who, in the course of that raving reveals that his real motivation is a desire to criticize Government Authority thereby shoots himself in the foot.

Tax protesting is, at a fundamental level, intellectual dishonesty. It is dishonesty with one's own self. It is self-delusion.

[Imalawman]

Me? I plan to finish studying for the evening, soak in the jacuzzi and call a young lady I know.......and contemplate managing what is now a 7-figure mixed investment portfolio.

You poor, poor sheeple. Don't you realize that you're a slave? Don't you want to know the truth and thereby have that truth set you free?

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy:

Here is an example of what I am talking about. This is a posting by “databrain” or “tim” from losthorizons.com, in a thread called “Americans living overseas,” posted on 17 October 2007, at

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... ?p=263#263

Jeff,

Your circumstances are certainly a special situation. As for reading Cracking The Code - there are no magic bullets or how-to chapters.

Becoming a CtC Educated Warrior - is exactly what this forum and Pete's book are all about - educating. As you've already seen - the tax code, tax law, and tax regulations are extremely complex.

Thus, each of us have three basic choices:

1) Call an accountant/CPA/lawyer – who will most likely call the IRS
2) Call the IRS and hope you get someone that can help
3) Educate yourself - make your own decisions

Most CtC Warriors have learned that your accountant, lawyer, and even the IRS all have tunnel vision. They are trained to respond in the same manner and few have bothered to read/learn the Law for themselves. It's pretty clear that they would rather quote regulations/code than the Law. Thus, you'll get the standard answers to your questions.

However, the Law is Law and regulations and codes are not superior to the Law. Trying to get anyone in the Tax community to talk Law is virtually impossible. Thus, option 3 is where the rubber meets the road.

Only you and no one else can determine what to file or testify to. Many other people and websites will try to sell you advice, schemes, etc. - all of which I consider to be BS.

Pete is offering information with which anyone can educate themselves, learn the Truth, and then apply the Law as it was meant to be. Thus, not buying Pete's book and educating yourself - leaves you with only options 1 & 2.

The choices are yours.

Regards,

Tim

--(bolding added by Famspear)

This individual, “Tim” or “databrain,” is deeply delusional.

First, Tim seems to honestly believe that if the average attorney or CPA were presented with the Peter Hendrickson “Cracking the Code” theories, the average attorney or CPA would “call the IRS” to find out what the law is. This evidences a basic misconception of how CPAs and attorneys go about formal analysis. Just about the last thing that any such practitioner would do is call the IRS to find out what the law is.

The study of law, as done by professionals, is a process far removed from the awareness of people like “Tim.”

Yes, practitioners do call the IRS on rare, intermittent occasions – generally not to “find out what the law is”, but rather to find out “what the IRS position is.”

The statement that the accountant, etc., has “tunnel vision” betrays deep delusion on the part of Tim. This is just another way of Tim’s expression of his frustration with the fact that 99% of all tax experts would find “Cracking the Code” so riddled with fundamental analytical error so as to be not worthy of serious consideration. "Cracking the Code" indeed, is not worthy of serious consideration -- the classic definition of something that is "frivolous."

Tim’s critique -- that the experts would rather quote Code and regs than “the law” -- also betrays deep delusion on Tim’s part, the delusion being that “the law” is somehow “Cracking the Code’’, the laughable, erroneous, uneducated drivel of a two-bit, narcissistic ex-con, an ex-con who recently lost his own tax case despite his own “theory.”

Tim’s assertion that ANYONE can educate himself on tax law is delusional. There probably are very few people who, without formal training, can properly fully educate themselves on the intricacies of Federal income tax law.

Some things are just beyond the ability of the average person to understand without years of formal training. (I know, I know; statements like this one drive many tax protesters crazy with anger, frustration and indignation.) Unfortunately, U.S. Federal income tax law is one of those things. So, presumably, are things like brain surgery and elementary particle physics and Riemannian geometry and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

What I mean by this is that while, for example, I can take a leisure learning course on the Theory of Relativity, and I can buy books and do my own informal reading on the subject, and I can acquire some basic understanding, I cannot with such a paltry effort know the subject AS WELL AS SCIENTISTS WITH YEARS OF FORMAL, INTENSIVE STUDY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION I DO NOT HAVE know the subject. The refusal to accept the significance of years of formal study of a mind-numbingly complex body of knowledge is a hallmark of the delusion of tax protesters.

Tim’s reference to “the law as it was meant to be” further illustrates Tim’s delusion. There is no such thing as “THE LAW AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE.” This is just Tim’s way of saying “the law as I wish it were.”

Tim’s laughable idea that he -- and Pete Hendrickson -- can come to the “correct” interpretation of the U.S. Federal income tax law based on their own private study, and the related idea that 99% of all the lawyers, CPAs, judges, law professors, etc., etc. (who have studied the subject with access to far more extensive and more reliable resources) are "wrong" because they are somehow victims of “tunnel vision” betrays a complete lack of any intellectual or psychological capacity on Tim’s part to properly deal with the subject of the tax law.

[SteveSy]

I note your use of the abbreviation "TA." I'm not sure what you meant by that, but some tax protesters use the abbreviation "TA" to mean "tax advocate," which in turn is tax protesters' code language for "people who disagree with tax protesters." The concept is that anyone who disagrees with the delusional belief that the Federal income tax is invalid, improperly applied, etc., etc., etc., must somehow be emotionally in favor of the tax law or ADVOCATING that the tax law is "good" and, by extension, emotionally in favor of the Authority Figure itself, which is the government. This is another fundamental flaw in the tax protester thinking process.

And it is more flawed to argue you're simply defending something just because you believe it to be a law because someone told you so. I'm sure you realize that many oppressive government's perpetrate acts upon the people that aren't really laws at all but their court systems and those administering these concocted laws will always side with those in power. Would you also side with those oppressive regimes because the thugs that administer these decrees get away with it with the support of their corrupt counts? It seems to me you would have to. In fact using your flawed logic every oppressive regime known to man kind was legitimate and the acts perpetrated were legally justified.

I'm sure you'll come back and attack me on the premise that American government isn't corrupt, of course all the evidence proves otherwise. People in government are routinely exposed as corrupt. Every discussion we have ends up with "The courts all agree", who really gives a damn. All the courts agree in oppressive regimes also, does that make the acts perpetrate on the people legitimate? Again, your logic, if it can even merit that name, fails simple tests and completely and utterly rests on your flawed, illogical, vision of an incorruptible federal justice system.

As far as Tax protesters, don't almost all of you claim Tax Protesters are simply greedy and don't want to pay tax, and then in your next breath belittle them for how poor most of them are? The pure contradictory, illogical, and total lack of common sense exposed in your arguments expose most of you as socialists. Since a lot of tax protesters don;t have that much money that means they would likely get all the tax paid and more back....seems they've saved you money by not paying. Strange how someone is labeled greedy for taking less than what they by your understanding of the law are due. So the real reason is not because they're greedy, you just label them that because you have an unnatural hatred for those who question authority, an authority you want and desire to exist in its current form without challenge.

[SteveSy]

What I mean by this is that while, for example, I can take a leisure learning course on the Theory of Relativity, and I can buy books and do my own informal reading on the subject, and I can acquire some basic understanding, I cannot with such a paltry effort know the subject AS WELL AS SCIENTISTS WITH YEARS OF FORMAL, INTENSIVE STUDY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION I DO NOT HAVE know the subject. The refusal to accept the significance of years of formal study of a mind-numbingly complex body of knowledge is a hallmark of the delusion of tax protesters.

What's delusional is to believe you and only certain people like you can find certain meaning in a sentence than what is really there or even attempt to equate law to science. It's delusional to pretend you have some extra intelligent ability to read a law, written for the general public, and only people like you are capable of understanding it. Megalomania comes to mind, or simply an effort to profit by pretending its more difficult that what it really is, making you a type of shyster.

People like Madison knew about people like you a long time ago.

Madison – Federalist #62

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

[.]

those controlling the price of oil

Poor Sybil quite obviously knows next to nothing about markets and how they actually function, particularly the oil market.

Add that to the list of delusions.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

And it is more flawed to argue you're simply defending something just because you believe it to be a law because someone told you so.

That’s right, Steve! And it is the TAX PROTESTERS who are doing that – except that tax protesters do not “defend” the law, they attack the law and basically deny that the law is the law.

People who really study law according to the rules of legal analysis, on the other hand, are not coming to a conclusion about what the law is based on “what somebody told us.” That is not legal analysis. And when we make a determination of what the law is, we are not “defending” the law. For example, making a determination, based on formal legal analysis, that the wage of an ordinary private-sector worker in Oklahoma is taxable is not “defending” that law. We’re not saying it’s good or bad. We’re saying that it’s the law. There are lots of laws that I don’t like – but those laws are no less “the law” merely because I don’t like those laws.

SteveSy wrote:

Would you also side with those oppressive regimes because the thugs that administer these decrees get away with it with the support of their corrupt counts?

Again, making a determination that the law is what it is is not “siding with an oppressive regime” or “siding with a democratic regime” or “siding" with any regime. Determining “what the law is” is not “siding” with anyone. There may be oppressive laws in China, but if I were to study Chinese law, I would not make a determination of “what the law is” in that country on the basis of my personal feeling or belief about what the law SHOULD be. That would be goofy.

SteveSy wrote:

I'm sure you'll come back and attack me on the premise that American government isn't corrupt, of course all the evidence proves otherwise.

No, Steve, you are illustrating my point: Nobody in the CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT gives a flying f**k whether the American government is corrupt or not. Who cares? That’s not the issue for us.

The corruption of the American government IS, HOWEVER, the issue for many tax protesters. And that’s my point: Tax protesters as a group are intellectually dishonest where they attack the tax law as somehow not being “really” the law – when what they are really doing is attacking the GOVERNMENT, and simply using the tax law as a fake facade for the attack on the government.

SteveSy wrote:

Every discussion we have ends up with "The courts all agree", who really gives a damn. All the courts agree in oppressive regimes also, does that make the acts perpetrate on the people legitimate? Again, your logic, if it can even merit that name, fails simple tests and completely and utterly rests on your flawed, illogical, vision of an incorruptible federal justice system.

Again, you’ve just proved my point. Under the U.S. legal system, where a court of law decides a particular point of law, the law IS what the court RULES the law to be – because THAT’S HOW LAW IS DEFINED, by definition, under our system. THAT’S why the discussion always ends up that way.

That does not mean that the U.S. system is “legitimate” in the particular sense in which I think you probably are using the term. It does not mean that the system is "good" or "fair." It just means that THIS IS THE LAW. Again, you illustrate a pervasive psychological problem that many tax protesters have: the inability or unwillingness to distinguish “law” from “fairness” (for lack of better terminology).

My “system” does not fail any simple test. First, it’s not “my system.” Second, it’s not illogical. Third, I have no "vision" of an “incorruptible federal justice system.” That would be goofy as well. The issue I am talking about is not "whether the system is corrupt", or corruptible. The issue I am talking about is: What is the law?

Again, tax protesters often cannot seem to separate, in their own minds, the difference between the questions “What is the law in this particular country” from “Is the legal system in this country corrupt?”.

Steve Sy wrote:

As far as Tax protesters, don't almost all of you claim Tax Protesters are simply greedy and don't want to pay tax, and then in your next breath belittle them for how poor most of them are? The pure contradictory, illogical, and total lack of common sense exposed in your arguments expose most of you as socialists [ . . . ]

Well aside from the lack of logic in your apparent argument or implication that a person cannot be “poor” and also be “greedy,” I would say that you just aren’t paying attention, Steve. Maybe by the phase “all of you” you mean the people here at Quatloos. Yes, there are some who may make such an argument, but obviously if you read the forums you can see that we have come up with all kinds of motivations for tax protesters. In fact, the ones I keep harping on here are more related to psychological concepts like transference and narcissism than to “greed” – although greed obviously is a factor in many cases as well. I don’t know that “most” tax protesters are “poor” – but even if they were, that would not logically mean that they couldn’t also be greedy.

Socialists? Think about what you’re saying, Steve.

SteveSy wrote:

So the real reason is not because they're greedy, you just label them that because you have an unnatural hatred for those who question authority, an authority you want and desire to exist in its current form without challenge.

Steve, you just blew your own argument again! You just confirmed what I have already said. Here, you are admitting that your real motivation for tax protester beliefs is that you are QUESTIONING AUTHORITY, and that you want to CHANGE the current form of authority. For tax protesters, this is not really about “what the law really is.” It’s about attacking the Authority Figure.

If you want to attack the Authority Figure, Steve, then have at it! Be my guest.

But don’t lie to yourself, and don’t lie to others, by saying that “there’s no law that makes me liable for the income tax.” Instead, be honest and straightforward about exactly what your disagreement with the system is. And work to change the system. If you think your wages should not be taxable, then work to change the law -- instead of working yourself into delusional thinking about what the law actually is.

SteveSy wrote:

What's delusional is to believe you and only certain people like you can find certain meaning in a sentence than what is really there or even attempt to equate law to science.

That’s right Steve! It would be delusional to believe that only I or certain people can find certain meaning in a sentence, etc. But it is even more delusional to think that an unskilled, uneducated person with no training in law can magically find the “true” meaning of the law and that the 99% of people who have that training are wrong, or that they have tunnel vision.

What I am saying is that only people with sufficient training and experience can properly analyze Federal income tax laws -- laws that are far too complex to be properly, fully understood by the average person. In the field of Federal income taxation, no amount of "intelligence" can adequately substitute for proper training, proper experience, and good mental health.

SteveSy wrote:

It's delusional to pretend you have some extra intelligent ability to read a law, written for the general public, and only people like you are capable of understanding it.

That’s right Steve. And if you go back and read what I’ve written, I said nothing about extra "intelligent" ability. It is NOT delusional, however, to state that you do need extra ABILITY to understand Federal income tax law. The ABILITY can be obtained only if you have proper training, proper experience, and good mental health.

SteveSy wrote:

Megalomania comes to mind, or simply an effort to profit by pretending its more difficult that what it really is, making you a type of shyster.

No, megalomania comes to mind only in connection with the tax protesters. It is simply delusional for a tax protester to think that he or she can properly analyze tax law and that the real experts cannot do so. The tax protesters are the shysters, because they tell people that THEY have found the true meaning of the tax law and that the vast bulk of lawyers and CPAs are wrong about it. That is the big lie pushed by tx protesters.

Pretending that the tax law is somehow “knowable” by using tax protester methods of “analysis” is an example of narcissism, which some commentators relate to the concept of “megalomania.” Narcissism is an infantile delusional belief that one’s “self” is omnipotent. In every day life, this mental disorder may manifest itself in the delusional belief that the person with the disorder has powers and abilities not only beyond his actual powers and abilities, but also powers and abilities beyond the experts in the field.

Nobody is "pretending" that the field of tax law is more complex than it is. The field of tax law is far more complex than you, SteveSy, will ever even realize. If anything, we as tax practitioners are not communicating to others the extent of the true complexity of the law. It is the tax protesters who are PRETENDING.

Regarding your contention that it is delusional to “attempt to equate law to science” – nobody is trying to “equate” the two. What I am saying, and what you are (TO PUT THIS BLUNTLY) delusional about IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ME, is that Federal income tax law, like Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, is too complex to be understood with the approaches used by tax protesters.

As a tax protester, you will NEVER come to a correct understanding of what the tax law is until and unless you (1) straighten out your psychological problems; (2) accept that attacking the Authority Figure is different from analyzing the law ENFORCED by that Authority Figure; and (3) accept the fact that lawyers, CPAs, and other people who have enormously greater amounts of training and experience in the field of Federal income taxation will virtually always have a far better understanding of that subject than you do.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

And it is more flawed to argue you're simply defending something just because you believe it to be a law because someone told you so.

That’s right, Steve! And it is the TAX PROTESTERS who are doing that – except that tax protesters do not “defend” the law, they attack the law and basically deny that the law is the law.

People who really study law according to the rules of legal analysis, on the other hand, are not coming to a conclusion about what the law is based on “what somebody told us.” That is not legal analysis. And when we make a determination of what the law is, we are not “defending” the law. For example, making a determination, based on formal legal analysis, that the wage of an ordinary private-sector worker in Oklahoma is taxable is not “defending” that law. We’re not saying it’s good or bad. We’re saying that it’s the law. There are lots of laws that I don’t like – but those laws are no less “the law” merely because I don’t like those laws.

And it is only your ignorance that keeps you from understanding that other people simply do not agree with you or your view on the law and it has nothing to do with "not liking the law".

Again, making a determination that the law is what it is is not “siding with an oppressive regime” or “siding with a democratic regime” or “siding" with any regime. Determining “what the law is” is not “siding” with anyone. There may be oppressive laws in China, but if I were to study Chinese law, I would not make a determination of “what the law is” in that country on the basis of my personal feeling or belief about what the law SHOULD be. That would be goofy.

Once again you base your opinion on personal feelings rather than actual facts. Many Tax protesters as you call them simply do not agree with your version of the law. The people that do agree with you believe what they do because others said it was that way. Don't try and pretend that you would hold a belief the law was something other than what some judge told you it was. You WILL without a doubt accept that a law is whatever someone says it is if you believe they are the authority.

No, Steve, you are illustrating my point: Nobody in the CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT gives a flying f**k whether the American government is corrupt or not. Who cares? That’s not the issue for us.

It's relevant because you will accept whatever some some person of authority tells you what the law is as will every other person like yourself. This is regardless of what you read.

The corruption of the American government IS, HOWEVER, the issue for many tax protesters. And that’s my point: Tax protesters as a group are intellectually dishonest where they attack the tax law as somehow not being “really” the law – when what they are really doing is attacking the GOVERNMENT, and simply using the tax law as a fake facade for the attack on the government.

Again you are showing your ignorance. You are equating the hate for a system in which TP's believe is cheating them with "intellectually dishonesty" in reading the law. You have it ass backwards to no surprise. Of course people will not like something that they believe is ripping them off.

Again, you’ve just proved my point. Under the U.S. legal system, where a court of law decides a particular point of law, the law IS what the court RULES the law to be – because THAT’S HOW LAW IS DEFINED, by definition, under our system. THAT’S why the discussion always ends up that way.

All you proved is my point....using that method of deciding what is right or wrong concerning the law make every oppressive regime legitimate. You're just so wrapped up in your own desire to be right you fail to see the flaw in your reasoning.

That does not mean that the U.S. system is “legitimate” in the particular sense in which I think you probably are using the term. It does not mean that the system is "good" or "fair." It just means that THIS IS THE LAW. Again, you illustrate a pervasive psychological problem that many tax protesters have: the inability or unwillingness to distinguish “law” from “fairness” (for lack of better terminology).

I'm not talking about fairness or "legitimate" in the moral way. I'm talking about a proper interpretation of the law. Oppressive regimes will ALWAYS have their courts agree with them on their interpretation of the law regardless if its the correct one or not.

I'm not going to answer the rest because it's all based on the flawed premise that tax protesters don't really believe the law says what they say it says. It's just stupid to believe so many people are willing to lose everything and even go to prison on a made up belief. Even people who would get more back if they actually filed. Maybe its your pathological way of dealing with the illogical.


I despise our current government because I think its ripping people off. there are many laws I do not like but I acknowledge they exist and they are enforceable as authority has dictated it. A lot of them are taxes, such as state taxes. My belief on how the federal income tax law is interpreted is not predicated with my hatred for what the government is doing. It is actually the exact opposite. The federal government is misapplying the law to rip people off, and the fact that they are doing this to rip people off makes me hate the current government. Of course I believe they are doing more than just misapplying the revenue laws.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

And it is only your ignorance that keeps you from understanding that other people simply do not agree with you or your view on the law and it has nothing to do with "not liking the law".

Ignorance? Come on.

No, Steve, it’s not that “other people simply do not agree with me or my view of the law.” You are trying to make it sound like we disagree over whether chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla.

Since you are now saying that you are using the term “legitimate” in the denotative sense of “legal” (and not merely “fair or unfair”, etc.) our disagreement is not over a matter of mere opinion. Only one of us can be right about what the law is, when our positions are diametrically opposed.

Steve wrote:

Oppressive regimes will ALWAYS have their courts agree with them on their interpretation of the law regardless if its the correct one or not.

Sorry, Steve, but no matter how oppressive the regime, the law in that country is what it is. The fact that you believe the USA to be an oppressive regime does not change the “legal legitimacy” of the law of the USA. It may, however, mean that the law lacks “moral legitimacy” (again, I may not be using these terms in a precise way, but I think you know what I mean when I make this distinction).

SteveSy wrote:

You [Famspear] WILL without a doubt accept that a law is whatever someone says it is if you believe they are the authority.

No, Steve, that’s just your roundabout way of saying that I, Famspear, understand and accept the basic legal principle that the law is what the court rules the law to be. You may personally feel that this principle is not valid, or that it’s not a good rule. But your personal feelings do not change the legal validity of the principle, any more than my personal feelings could change it.

SteveSy wrote:

. . . you [Famspear] will accept whatever some some person of authority tells you what the law is as will every other person like yourself. This is regardless of what you read.

Steve, this is your way of simply recharacterizing the rule of law that I have expounded – which is that the law is what the court rules the law to be. The phrase “every other person like yourself” is simply your way of saying “every person who disagrees with Steve on this subject.”

Steve wrote:

Again you are showing your ignorance. You are equating the hate for a system in which TP's believe is cheating them with "intellectually dishonesty" in reading the law. You have it ass backwards to no surprise. Of course people will not like something that they believe is ripping them off.

Come on, Steve. I suppose now you are going to try to get us to believe that tax protesters somehow FIRST “discovered” that the tax law is what the tax protesters claim it is, and THEN came to the “logical” conclusion that they hated the government. Please. I have had too much experience with tax protesters to fall for that.

No, I do not have it backwards, Steve. I have it exactly right. The unnatural hatred of Authority came FIRST. The delusion about tax law is just a RESULT of that hatred – not a cause of it.

SteveSy wrote:

. . . using that method of deciding what is right or wrong concerning the law make every oppressive regime legitimate. You're just so wrapped up in your own desire to be right you fail to see the flaw in your reasoning.

No. First, I’m not “wrapped up in a desire to be right.” Indeed, if anything that’s part of the problem of tax protesters – they let their desire to be correct overwhelm their critical faculties.

And there’s no flaw in my “reasoning.” It’s not a question of “reasoning” but a matter of studying the law and describing what is there. I simply study the law. Whatever I find, that’s what I report.

Sometimes I find things I don’t like in the law – things that are oppressive and unfair. When I find something oppressive, however, I don’t go into an emotional tailspin (like tax protesters do) and then work myself up into a frenzied delusion (like tax protesters do) and then simply deny that the law is what it is (when of course is what tax protesters do). What I am doing is simply describing to you what the law IS, according to the rules of law. Part of the reason I don’t go into an emotional tailspin, part of the reason I don’t become delusional, etc., is that I don’t make the mistake of equating “describing what the law is” with “advocating the goodness of that law” (or advocating the goodness of the larger system of which that law is a part).

If my car has a defective fuel pump, my recognizing that fact does not constitute a value judgment that my “overall car” is morally “bad.” If my car has a properly working fuel pump, my recognizing that fact does not constitute a value judgment that my “overall car” is morally “good.” I may for whatever reason have a strong feeling that the fuel pump is defective – but if all the tests I run show that the pump is working properly, I’m not going to let my “feeling” that the pump is defective (or that the overall car is morally bad) affect my analysis of the data on the fuel pump.

Whether using the “method I use” makes every oppressive regime legitimate or not, the method is the correct method for determining what is CORRECT OR INCORRECT about the law. Steve, when you say “right or wrong” it’s unclear whether you mean “correct or incorrect”, on the one hand, or “morally right or morally wrong” (for lack of a better terminology) on the other.

Steve, if you mean “morally right or wrong” or “fair or unfair”, then I agree with you, Steve. My “method” (which of course isn’t specifically “my” method, anyway) is NOT designed or intended to be used to determine what is fair or unfair, or morally right or wrong, about the U.S. legal system or (as you put it) a regime that is “oppressive.”

What you tax protesters seem to have a very hard time understanding is that by accurately describing what the law is, we (the non-delusional majority, the “tax advocates” as you incorrectly refer to us) are not saying that the law is fair or unfair, morally right or wrong, or that the government or system that enforces the law is good or bad. We are simply describing what the law is. We are not “advocating” the law, and we are not claiming that the law is fair, or that the USA "regime" is not corrupt. We are DESCRIBING what the law IS – fair or unfair. And we are trying to help you pull yourself out of your sloppy thinking. We are trying to help you think more clearly.

If you, Steve, want to take the position that the U.S. legal system, or governmental system, or society or whatever is corrupt and oppressive, fine. Even if I disagree with you on that opinion (and I partially agree anyway), you, Steve, could be correct and I could be incorrect.

Let’s assume that you are correct. Even if you, Steve, are completely right that the U.S. system is oppressive and corrupt, that does not change the fact that you are completely incorrect in the way you go about trying to understand THE LAW that is a part of that system. You are incorrect on WHAT THE LAW IS.

You, Steve, could correctly recognize that “wages are taxable” from a LEGAL standpoint, that the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified from a LEGAL standpoint, that residents of Oklahoma who work at McDonalds ARE SUBJECT TO Federal income tax from a legal standpoint, without having to give up any of your “SteveSy principles or beliefs” about the corruptness or badness of the system itself.

I hope this long-winded explanation helps you to think about this subject, even if you do not agree with the explanation. Yours, Famspear

[Nikki]

Poor Stevie seems to be well on his way down the Tax Protestor logical path.

First, he attacked specific legal aspects of the laws related to the income tax: the 861 issue, the meaning of 'whatever' in both the 16th amendment and in the code, the intent of Congress when they enacted the tax, and the intent of the Founding Dathers when they wrote the Constitution.

Next, he moved into the "I shouldn't have to pay because I oppose how it's being spent and it's all being wasted" and "The politicians are just spend it to get reelected" school of whininess.

Now, he's at the ultimate point where nothing else matters because the courts are all corrupt or are only making the decisions they do because they are afraid of the IRS.

Of courst, throughout the entire process, the fact filter has been firmly in place so that nothing which could possibly divert his path toward his pre-determined conclusion is allowed into the analysis.