Question 1 discussion

[Jamie0331]

Really!

Tax protesters cite Ballard to complain that "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Of course, that's correct! "Income" is not defined in the U.S. Constitution, either.

Pollock, 158 U.S. at 635-637. "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on
income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not
commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or
employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or
employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all investments of all
kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be
eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professionals,
trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital
would remain in substance as a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that
such was the intention of Congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by
apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof,
might not lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments and vocations. But this is
not such an act; and the scheme must be considered as a whole."

What are you talking about? Please don’t respond with nonsense!

[Jamie0331]

What are you talking about?
You’re taking nonsense!
Just like the OMB#

requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to
be considered 'bootleg' requests and may be ignored by the public... S.Rep. No. 930,
Supra 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6241,
6292. See also 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1320.5(c) "Whenever a member of the public is protected
from imposition of a penalty under this section for failure to comply with a collection of
information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency directly, by an agency
through judicial process, or by any other person through judicial or administrative
process."


The 1040 is not valid with that number, you and others are saying it is! Why? BS!

[BBFlatt]

Jamie, read what you just posted carefully. In Pollack, the Supreme Court held that the tax on income from property (i.e. rents, dividends and interest) was the same as a tax on the underlying property, and therefore was a direct tax that required apportionment by the constitutional restrictions on direct taxes. It went on to say, essentially, that taxes on wages and business income were just fine, but since so much of the revenue from the law under consideration was from the prohibited sources, it thought it best to rule the whole thing unconstitutional.

The 16th amendment was subsequently enacted and made the whole question of the source of the income to be taxed irrelevant.

[Gregg]

What are you talking about?
You’re taking nonsense!
Just like the OMB#

requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to
be considered 'bootleg' requests and may be ignored by the public... S.Rep. No. 930,
Supra 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6241,
6292. See also 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1320.5(c) "Whenever a member of the public is protected
from imposition of a penalty under this section for failure to comply with a collection of
information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency directly, by an agency
through judicial process, or by any other person through judicial or administrative
process."


The 1040 is not valid with that number, you and others are saying it is! Why? BS!

The courts have ruled, more than a few times and a few ways, that the OMB form number argument is not not valid. If you really must know why, which I suspect you don't, you can look up and read those cases. But you still have to pay your taxes.

[Pottapaug1938]

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!

Okay. You are cherry-picking one phrase from an appellate opinion, without any surrounding context. What's your point -- if you have one?

[noblepa]

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!

What is your point? There have been many justices who believed, as did the late Antonin Scalia, in "originalism" or, as it was once called "strict constructionism".

How does that case, or even that statement, relate to your argument that wages are not taxable?

Are you one of those who argue that amendments, such as the 16th, don't change the original text of the Constitution?

[Famspear]

What are you talking about?
You’re taking nonsense!

That's called "projection," Jamie. You're talking nonsense, and you realize it but you don't want to accept it. So, instead, you accuse everyone else of talking nonsense.

Just like the OMB#

requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to
be considered 'bootleg' requests and may be ignored by the public...

First, a Form 1040 is not a request for information. It's a form used by the taxpayer to PROVIDE information. The IRS does not issue the form as part of a "request."

You are required -- not by the IRS or by any other government agency -- but instead by law, to timely file a Form 1040 tax return.

The Form 1040 bears a valid OMB control number. Every court that has considered this has so ruled.

Whenever a member of the public is protected from imposition of a penalty under this section for failure to comply with a collection of information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency directly, by an agency through judicial process, or by any other person through judicial or administrative process.

What the public is NOT protected from is the imposition of a penalty for failure to timely FILE THE RETURN and PAY THE TAX for which Form 1040 is the prescribed form. The Paperwork Reduction Act, and the regulations related thereto, DO NOT REPEAL THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, which is a separate law. This is the fundamental legal point that you people don't seem to want to accept or understand.

In other words, you are wrong about EVERYTHING, Jamie! Congratulations!

[Duke2Earl]

It is really quite sad to see someone self destruct before your eyes. Here's a fact that isn't nonsense. Since 1913 hundreds of people have tried to claim that their wages were not taxable....hundreds....and not a single one of them has won that argument. None! And they have used the same gibberish that jamie is trying to spew. And every single one of them was totally convinced that they were going to win. And every single one of them lost. And this is going to turn out exactly the same way. The only question is whether jamie will succeed in avoiding spending time in the greybar hotel.

[notorial dissent]

To make it even more pathetic, if he is to be believed, he is trying to argue in a state setting using pretend Federal and other state statutes and rulings. Surprisingly, NOT, State taxing authorities aren't in the least interested or moved by references to Title 26.

[Chaos]

if he is to be believed

well, he's not. every thread he started contained the word 'discussion'. he has proven that is a lie with his responses.

[HardyW]

Well the word 'discussion' was not inserted by Jamie, it was in the original source document.
And it's not true that 'every thread he started contained the word discussion'. The order of postings followed approximately the sections in Maehr's Petition for writ of certiorari U.S. Supreme Court Case #12-6169.

So first Jamie posted a number of threads quoting alleged court citations from Maehr's extensive Table of authorities cited.

I don't think he reproduced Maehr's Statement of the case, but he did give us the Reasons for granting the petition.

And in due course we were treated to Question 1 discussion, Question 2 discussion, and so on, although we never reached Maehr's Question 20 discussion before he was estopped from creating new threads.

Nor has Jamie presented us with Maehr's Conclusion. So he has not told us that:

Petitioner has formed, in good faith and without any criminal intent whatsoever, his position on these issues, using this honorable court’s own rulings, among many other things. Petitioner’s challenges are not "frivolous" and are, in fact, based upon a reasonable reading and interpretation of valid and extant statutory and jurisprudential authorities. Petitioner’s genuinely held, good faith beliefs would negate any intent on his part to willfully violate any law, and that absence of criminal intent makes him innocent of wrong. (See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S.192 (1991)).

[Famspear]

Petitioner has formed, in good faith and without any criminal intent whatsoever, his position on these issues, using this honorable court’s own rulings, among many other things. Petitioner’s challenges are not "frivolous" and are, in fact, based upon a reasonable reading and interpretation of valid and extant statutory and jurisprudential authorities. Petitioner’s genuinely held, good faith beliefs would negate any intent on his part to willfully violate any law, and that absence of criminal intent makes him innocent of wrong. (See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S.192 (1991)).

This verbiage would be relevant in a Federal criminal tax case.

So, did I miss something? From what document is this verbiage taken? Has Maehr been charged with a Federal tax crime? Or, is this just the usual Maehr idiocy from something he filed in one of his civil tax cases?

[HardyW]

So, did I miss something? From what document is this verbiage taken? Has Maehr been charged with a Federal tax crime? Or, is this just the usual Maehr idiocy from something he filed in one of his civil tax cases?

Morrand found the link two pages ago. The Jeffrey Maehr case (cases) is discussed on this thread where Jamie0331 made his debut and where someone calling themselves "countyguard" made their one and only appearance on Q.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 4&start=33

The document which is being quoted can be found at
https://www.scribd.com/document/1136272 ... -for-ORDER
or (in PDF form) at
http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/File ... ourt-S.pdf

[Famspear]

So, did I miss something? From what document is this verbiage taken? Has Maehr been charged with a Federal tax crime? Or, is this just the usual Maehr idiocy from something he filed in one of his civil tax cases?

Morrand found the link two pages ago. The Jeffrey Maehr case (cases) is discussed on this thread where Jamie0331 made his debut and where someone calling themselves "countyguard" made their one and only appearance on Q.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 4&start=33

The document which is being quoted can be found at
https://www.scribd.com/document/1136272 ... -for-ORDER
or (in PDF form) at
http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/File ... ourt-S.pdf

That's the petition for writ of certiorari in the civil case. We already have that. I done repeated searches, and I have not located that verbiage anywhere in the text.

[wserra]

It's on p 63 (scribd p 63, not numbered p 63) of the scribd document. It appears that there are different copies of Maehr's cert petition floating around. And yes, since Maehr filed the cert petition in a civil case, it's just more of his stupidity - whatever the version.

[HardyW]

OK I hadn't noticed that the two versions (PDF and Scribd) differ other than in page numbering. The PDF is on Maehr's own site so I assumed it is definitive.

Doesn't make any difference to our judgement about Jamie0331 though, does it?

[notorial dissent]

Would it even qualify as a Cert Petition, since it didn't seem to address any of the issues raised on appeal, and I seem to remember that the appeal didn't really address any thing from the trial, but rather tried to re-litigate the previously lost matter at trial.

[Famspear]

It's on p 63 (scribd p 63, not numbered p 63) of the scribd document. It appears that there are different copies of Maehr's cert petition floating around. And yes, since Maehr filed the cert petition in a civil case, it's just more of his stupidity - whatever the version.

OK I hadn't noticed that the two versions (PDF and Scribd) differ other than in page numbering. The PDF is on Maehr's own site so I assumed it is definitive.

Doesn't make any difference to our judgement about Jamie0331 though, does it?

OK. So, as I suspected, Maehr asserted, or thought about asserting a Cheek defense in a civil case.

What a doofus.

[notorial dissent]

I think Jaimie is the bigger doofus, he doesn't. even understand what he's sort of read.

[wserra]

Everyone - Jamie is moderated. Taking shots at him just means we have to permit him to take shots in return.

Kinda defeats the purpose.