Question 1 discussion

[Judge Roy Bean]

Sad to say, I am from the same state as Jamie0331. ...

I somehow doubt you are in the same utterly clueless state.

[Jamie0331]

Next you are going to tell me that John and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts are not from MA. And the Battle of Bunker Hill was not in MA either. Also the Revolutionary War did not involve taxes. Moreover you’re going to say. The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. The term "income" has repeatedly been held by the courts to indicate "gain on capital" and not receipts is not true.
If you know the laws, then Georgetown University Law Center. Georgetown is in the State of MA. You’re going to tell me that they are talking gibberish also. You know the laws. Email them and set them straight. Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

[Chaos]

Sad to say, I am from the same state as Jamie0331.

denial about having to pay taxes?

[wserra]

If you know the laws, then Georgetown University Law Center. Georgetown is in the State of MA.

Really? Damn. You mean they moved it from Capitol Hill since I got my JD there? I know that was a long time ago, but I think I would have heard.

You’re going to tell me that they are talking gibberish also. You know the laws. Email them and set them straight. Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

Did you actually read that draft article, Jamie? I find that hard to believe. Because, if you had actually read it - assuming, of course, that you can read - you would have been interested to learn that the author isn't discussing wages. Indeed, the author - like anyone with the least knowledge of the law - views it as an axiom that wages are taxed:

increases in wealth are just as much income as wages or the gain from sales
...
Other ways include measuring the market value of the output itself (e.g., child care) and valuing the labor based on the wages paid for similar work
...
Among the items that appear in every one of the income concepts are wages, business income, income from property (other than realized gains), and taxable interest and dividends.

Read that last sentence a few times.

[Duke2Earl]

Honestly I think the time has come to leave jamie alone. Obviously what has happened is that he didn't pay his taxes and he got caught and he hasn't got the money to pay up and he is desperate. So he is clutching at straws he really doesn't understand in desperation. And he is in a lot more trouble than he even realizes because at some point the MA tax folks are going to inform the IRS and he is going to have to deal with them too. He is never going to convince us that he doesn't owe taxes on his wages. And he isn't going to convince the MA tax authorities that he doesn't owe tax on his wages either. But he is still engaged in the process. He still has hope that if he throws enough paper and bad cites and gibberish around they will give up. That is extremely unlikely and would only occur if the amount he owes is very small and he is more trouble than he's worth. But if that were the case he would not be so desperate.

At this point he has been told the actual truth. He can't accept it. We all know what's going to happen and it isn't pretty....and is made more painful but the fact it takes so very long. The point the only thing really left is to feel sorry for him being caught up in things he really can't understand.

[notorial dissent]

Ignorance, illiteracy, stupidity????

[Hyrion]

He still has hope that if he throws enough paper and bad cites and gibberish around they will give up.

Don't overlook the personal attacks. They are so very effective in getting those of logical minds to realize they're being dense

We all know what's going to happen and it isn't pretty....and is made more painful but the fact it takes so very long. The point the only thing really left is to feel sorry for him being caught up in things he really can't understand.

There is one thing.

Jamie0331: A suggestion. Does me no good, nor anyone else here. If you get your angry/panicky emotions under control and choose to think about it, you'll realize it's advice that only helps you.... if you choose to implement it. The advice:

• Consider the wisdom behind the concept of mitigating the damages.

If you carry your stubborn position all the way through all hearings you'll likely end up getting the harshest ruling applied. However, if you decide to back away from your position, explain you were mislead and you have developed an understanding of that, face up to the taxes you owe then there is a chance you might be able to work out a payment plan to get caught up on your taxes. But... if you prefer to "stick to your guns" all the way and stay "at the helm of that sinking ship" instead of "getting into the lifeboat"..... you'll loose any opportunity to work with the authorities for a reasonable payment plan.

You're not quite at the end of your rope.... so there is a less painful way out of the path you've chosen.

[Jamie0331]

So black’s law is nonsense? The problem is that you cannot spin it around to mean something that it is not. There is no such thing as taxable wages, it is taxable income that is derived from wages. Clearly you are not as dumb as I first thought. Calling black’s law nonsense is nonsense. You are involved in something to do with the taxing system. I am thinking work related. You are very fast to respond. What is your job? Does your job have anything to with detouring people away from the truth of the income tax? Because there is no such thing as the wage tax. All you do is spin the facts and avoid them. The time you put into this BS is very interesting. You keep avoiding the facts with stupid nonsense. Why?

[Jamie0331]

Should the IRS no their own laws if they are to enforce them?

Robert Bernhoft, Banister’s attorney, said his client was acquitted because the government did not prove he intended to defraud. Observers said a crucial moment of the trial occurred when defense attorneys intensely questioned Banister’s former supervisor at IRS, Robert Gorini, and he was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.
http://www.bernhoftlaw.com/major-cases/joseph-banister/

[Jamie0331]

Code and 31 U.S.C. § 321

What is the IRS going to enforce in that code?

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-31-m ... t-321.html

[Jamie0331]

The IRS is going to enforce thier laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A

26 U.S. Code § 3403 - Liability for tax

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

26 U.S. Code § 3401 - Definitions

(a) WagesFor purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid.

Now that is gibberish. You cannot understand profits and gains. But you understand that.

[noblepa]

Should the IRS no their own laws if they are to enforce them?

Robert Bernhoft, Banister’s attorney, said his client was acquitted because the government did not prove he intended to defraud. Observers said a crucial moment of the trial occurred when defense attorneys intensely questioned Banister’s former supervisor at IRS, Robert Gorini, and he was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.
http://www.bernhoftlaw.com/major-cases/joseph-banister/

IANAL, but even I know that a criminal case is not about the validity of the tax law. Bannister was acquitted of a crime, that of fraud and tax evasion. It does not mean that he or his clients don't have to pay the tax.

Juries acquit people for a lot of reasons. Jury decisions do not set precedent. The next person charged with tax fraud can not quote the Bannister case as prior law. In this case, the jury was not convinced that Bannister INTENDED to commit tax fraud.

Juries are not required to explain their reasoning. They simply vote for conviction or acquittal. Sometimes they can't agree on the verdict, in which case it is a "hung" jury.

There was a case, quite a while ago, in which a guy named Long, I believe, was also acquitted of tax evasion by arguing that he honestly believed that he didn't owe any tax. Again, the jury apparently did not find the intent to commit a crime, the "mens rea", that is necessary for conviction. He still had to pay the tax, along with penalties and interest.

Even if the judge in the Bannister case believed the argument that wages are not taxable, he has no authority to relieve Bannister of the obligation to pay the tax.

The only thing a criminal acquittal means is that Mr. Bannister will not go to jail for this. He will still have to pay the tax, as will his clients.

Again, you keep attempting to cite cases that have nothing to do with your apparent argument that wages are not taxable. This case made no such ruling.

[Famspear]

So black’s law is nonsense? The problem is that you cannot spin it around to mean something that it is not. There is no such thing as taxable wages, it is taxable income that is derived from wages. Clearly you are not as dumb as I first thought. Calling black’s law nonsense is nonsense. You are involved in something to do with the taxing system. I am thinking work related. You are very fast to respond. What is your job? Does your job have anything to with detouring people away from the truth of the income tax? Because there is no such thing as the wage tax. All you do is spin the facts and avoid them. The time you put into this BS is very interesting. You keep avoiding the facts with stupid nonsense. Why?

Good grief.



A nervous protester named Jamie
Had disjointed ideas -- cock-a-mamie!
So, he never made sense;
Every thought was quite dense,
And his rotten beliefs smelled quite gamey.

[Pottapaug1938]

Next you are going to tell me that John and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts are not from MA. And the Battle of Bunker Hill was not in MA either. Also the Revolutionary War did not involve taxes. Moreover you’re going to say. The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. The term "income" has repeatedly been held by the courts to indicate "gain on capital" and not receipts is not true.
If you know the laws, then Georgetown University Law Center. Georgetown is in the State of MA. You’re going to tell me that they are talking gibberish also. You know the laws. Email them and set them straight. Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

No, Jamie -- I am going to tell you that what YOU are writing is gibberish. You are throwing together factoids from laws and court decisions into a word salad with absolutely NO legal validity, and garnished liberally with cherry-picking.

As for your remarks about Georgetown -- those alone are proof that you are helplessly clueless, about law, geography and more. I know about Georgetown University -- my grandfather got his undergraduate and law degrees there; AND IT IS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.! I am also well familiar with Georgetown, Massachusetts; and it's a pretty town up near the New Hampshire border -- and a 9-hour drive from Georgetown, D.C.

You're engaging in a battle of wits with educated professionals, Jamie; and you are completely unarmed. As one Bay Stater to another -- it's time to call it a day, here. You're up against the Patriots; you are losing by a score of 78-0; and you have the ball on your own 1-foot-line, with 2 seconds left in the fourth quarter. You aren't even in field goal range.

[Jamie0331]

Hahaha! Framspear. You’re always entertaining. But yet still avoiding the facts. What’s up with that? Black’s law library is nonsense? You’re something else. Wage tax is just funny. Income tax, not so much. Pussyfooting again Framspear. Please take me off the babysitting function. I have learned my lesson. I promise I will be good master. Lol can I be relieved from time out?

You’re just afraid that I will out debate you. I am going to be me now. I have spent a lot of time fishing you. Please let me finish?

[Jamie0331]

OK! That is awesome! One the MASTER let’s me out of time out, we can go to war. Lol I probably should have been nicer to Framspear. Sorry!!!!! Do you accept?

Note from Burnaby49 - You are not out of time out. All of your individual posts still have to be approved by a moderator. I approved them because, while gibberish, they were not offensive. However if you revert to your prior behavior your posts won't be approved.

[noblepa]

So black’s law is nonsense? The problem is that you cannot spin it around to mean something that it is not. There is no such thing as taxable wages, it is taxable income that is derived from wages. Clearly you are not as dumb as I first thought. Calling black’s law nonsense is nonsense. You are involved in something to do with the taxing system. I am thinking work related. You are very fast to respond. What is your job? Does your job have anything to with detouring people away from the truth of the income tax? Because there is no such thing as the wage tax. All you do is spin the facts and avoid them. The time you put into this BS is very interesting. You keep avoiding the facts with stupid nonsense. Why?

Black's Law (the book) is not nonsense.

Neither is it law.

Your interpretation and application of Black's Law, on the other hand, IS nonsense.

[Jamie0331]

So you’re so said?
You're engaging in a battle of wits with educated professionals.

Black’ Law is not educated professionals?
You’re just silly children! Come and play with me. I am not a bully. Lol

[Jamie0331]

Pottapaug1938

What are you talking about?

Mattox v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895). "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted."

Please answer!

[jcolvin2]

You're engaging in a battle of wits with educated professionals, Jamie; and you are completely unarmed. As one Bay Stater to another -- it's time to call it a day, here. You're up against the Patriots; you are losing by a score of 78-0; and you have the ball on your own 1-foot-line, with 2 seconds left in the fourth quarter. You aren't even in field goal range.

The real question is: can Jamie somehow avoid a penalty on the play? Unsportsman-like conduct and delay of game are possibilities. For some reason, "puck over glass" also comes to mind.