Von Nuthouse raid (Continued)

[SteveSy]

Let me use simple words. If the Libby certificates are backed by precious metals, which are held by a private citizen, of a larcenous nature, there is the decent potential for that person to abscond with the precious metals and leave the holders of the Libby certificates with a new source of toilet paper.

That of course assumes the silver was held by anyone but an honest individual. The government has made no claim whatsoever, and they surely would have if they, that he did anything but make coins and notes for use as currency. Of course the tied mail fraud to the charge only because he used the mail system when transporting and or communicating to the people he was transferring those notes and coins to.

Finally, if the dollar collapses, it will in turn drag down the Euro, the pound, the yuan and the yen. I mean total world wide economic meltdown.

No it wouldn't....that assumes savvy businessmen would not drop the dollar as the standard. It's likely that a worldwide recession will take place prior to the final blow to drop the U.S. dollar as the standard though. It's very likely they will in the near future unless the Fed figures out how to get out of the serious problem they're in. If they raise interest rates to deflate the currency the facade of a great economy will be stripped away and the dollar loses value. If they continue to keep rates low the currency continues to inflate making the dollar continue to lose value.

Its nonsense that a devalued currency is good because it will prompt investment in U.S. manufacturing thus boost the economy. All of those corporations have already made huge investments to move out of the U.S. they're not going to come back to high taxes and regulation. Taxes will have to dramatically increase to compensate for the falling dollar and extreme governmental mismanagement of entitlement programs and they know it.

Here's a little bit of information for you. Governments tend to act in their own interests and the collapse of the US dollar would rudely and most negatively affect the interests of the EU, England, PRC, Japan. Thus it would be in their own best interest to prop up the dollar, or let it fall slowly and carefully, but not too far, lest really cheap US goods flood the world markets.

They don't directly control the value of the dollar the market does. The market is showing its distaste for the bloated over printed dollar.

It is likely the dollar will slide a bit further when compared to other currencies, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes our goods cheaper abroad and it makes it far more affordable for those abroad to visit here, all of which help the balance of trade, which will eventually stabilize or strengthen the dollar. If you are expecting a replay of the Great Depression, you will be sorely disappointed.

We'll see.....and I won't be disappointed, only people like you get off watching people suffer who you don't agree with. With that I have no doubt people like you will ALWAYS find some excuse why you and the government were not wrong if it does happen.

Even a well respected businessman can wear out his reputation by acting irresponsibly. He can get loans and credit right up to the point that its obvious he's on a mission to self destruct. The U.S. government is that once respected businessman.

btw, I don't state this as fact I state it as a personal opinion. However, I did say several years ago the dollar would soon start to dramatically fall....maybe it was just a lucky guess, but its still just common sense to me.

[SteveSy]

My personal opinion is all three. You are a liar, you are stupid and illiterate, and you are dishonest and delusional, and your postings to this forum provide clear evidence of the truth of my opinion.

Dan you're as ignorant as you always were....why don't you go make up some more crap and misquote some more Supreme Court cases on your FAQ. It seems thats about the only thing you do well.

That's a pretty lame comeback, even for you, Stevey. If Dan ever misquoted or misconstrued a Supreme Court case (or the decision of any other court, for that matter), I or one of the other attorneys who post here would call him on it. Lawyers like to show each other up just as much as the members of any other profession.

I've already shown the cases he surgically cuts from to give the impression they're saying something they did not intend to say.

Everyone on here would who is anti-tp would agree with anything Dan said that shows tp's wrong. He can make it up and you would still find some way to excuse it.

Anyway I'm not interested in this discussion....Dan prompted my post by being the belligerent, megalomaniac, narcissistic individual that he is. He even treats his fellow Quatloosian's the same way if you fail to agree with him.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I've already shown the cases he surgically cuts from to give the impression they're saying something they did not intend to say.

You did? When?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I've already shown the cases he surgically cuts from to give the impression they're saying something they did not intend to say.

Everyone on here would who is anti-tp would agree with anything Dan said that shows tp's wrong. He can make it up and you would still find some way to excuse it.

Anyway I'm not interested in this discussion....Dan prompted my post by being the belligerent, megalomaniac, narcissistic individual that he is. He even treats his fellow Quatloosian's the same way if you fail to agree with him.

No, Steve, Dan called you on your own blatant, amateurish, foolish misrepresentation of what the court said in the case. I had read the case you cited, and was about to call you on it when Dan beat me to the punch. Dan was right. You were wrong. Period.

And "surgically cutting" verbiage -- out of context -- from court cases is practically a trademark tactic of tax protesters, as we all know here.

If anyone here "makes things up", that person will be called on it. You made something up, and Dan called you on it.

As everyone here knows, words like "belligerent," "megalomaniac," and especially "narcissistic" are classic ways to describe many tax protesters. The word "narcissistic" has been used over and over here in Quatloos. Rather than simply lashing out ineffectually at Dan, who correctly called you on your umpteenth idiocy, you would better serve yourself by careful reading and thoughtful, unemotional analysis.

And look up the word "narcissistic" in a good dictionary, since you appear not to know what it means. Based on everything I have read of your writing, the term applies to you.

And yes, you are interested in this discussion.

[LPC]

Dan you're as ignorant as you always were....why don't you go make up some more crap and misquote some more Supreme Court cases on your FAQ. It seems thats about the only thing you do well.

That's a pretty lame comeback, even for you, Stevey. If Dan ever misquoted or misconstrued a Supreme Court case (or the decision of any other court, for that matter), I or one of the other attorneys who post here would call him on it. Lawyers like to show each other up just as much as the members of any other profession.

To the best of my recollection, the *ONLY* "misquote" that Sybil has ever called me on is my treatment of the Steward Machine case.

In Sybil's view, the fact that the party in interest was the employer and not the employee means that we can ignore everything that the Supreme Court said about the nature of excises, the power to tax, natural rights, etc.

I actually changed one reference in my FAQ to disclose that Steward Machine upheld the constitutionality of taxes on the employer and not the employee (see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rights), but apparently I didn't grovel enough so it wasn't good enough for Sybil.

But that's just one case. Sybil's use of the plural is just another of his delusions.

[SteveSy]

I've already shown the cases he surgically cuts from to give the impression they're saying something they did not intend to say.

You did? When?

Lots of times...

Here are the most obvious one's

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

This was a business excise tax case where they were talking about excise taxes on business. The only legislation that "commonly dealt" with income was taxes on business. They were clearly not talking about taxing individuals on their wages. Even when there was a tax that could have reached individuals in the 1860's it got to less than 1% of the population. Only a retard or someone attempting to represent what the SC said would try and say there were referring to the average individual.

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.”

Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

The case was again about taxing someone in business. This particular section has a footnote to support the statement. Each and every law they cite is a tax on the privilege to do business. a license tax with the measure being income in only one instance. In the case of the Washington law, which they cite, the State Supreme Court held an income tax on individuals as unconstitutional because there wasn't a state granted privilege to work or earn a living in general. If the SC was really trying to say every working individual can be taxed with an excise on their earnings they really screwed up by only citing laws that laid a license tax on the privilege of doing business.

Of course that's not what the court was trying to say, Dan just misrepresents what they said even after the evidence and the facts were shown to him.

[notorial dissent]

And now, having merrily wandered off track and topic, we have reached the magic number.

Say good night Gracie

Good night Gracie..............

[LPC]

Here are the most obvious one's

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”
Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

This was a business excise tax case where they were talking about excise taxes on business. The only legislation that "commonly dealt" with income was taxes on business. They were clearly not talking about taxing individuals on their wages. Even when there was a tax that could have reached individuals in the 1860's it got to less than 1% of the population. Only a retard or someone attempting to represent what the SC said would try and say there were referring to the average individual.

The quotation is accurate, of course.

Sybil goes batshit crazy about, and cannot accept the possibility that, Supreme Court might have meant what it said.

So he goes into typical Tax Denier mode. If the Supreme Court utters some words in a sequence that we like, then they obvious meant what we think they said. But if the Supreme Court rules against us and says something we don't like, then it must be meaningless "dicta."

And by the way, the same quotation is often used by Circuit Courts to refute tax denier nonsense. For example:

According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital’ are commonly treated as income.

United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.”

Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

The case was again about taxing someone in business. This particular section has a footnote to support the statement. Each and every law they cite is a tax on the privilege to do business. a license tax with the measure being income in only one instance. In the case of the Washington law, which they cite, the State Supreme Court held an income tax on individuals as unconstitutional because there wasn't a state granted privilege to work or earn a living in general. If the SC was really trying to say every working individual can be taxed with an excise on their earnings they really screwed up by only citing laws that laid a license tax on the privilege of doing business.

Of course that's not what the court was trying to say, [...]

Ditto what I said above.

Once again, Sybil channels judges and posits that what they actually said is not what they *meant* to say.

Sybil reads the statutes cited by the Supreme Court, decides that the statutes don't mean what the Supreme Court says that they mean, and so concludes that the Supreme Court didn't mean what it said (or what it held).

More wishful thinking masquerading as legal reasoning.