Wiki-How article not being deleted

[The Operative]

This is definitely a stupid De-Tax scheme or scam. Demo posted a link to the following Wiki-How article in Rants and Raving because the author is an illiterate moron. However, after some back and forth on the article's discussion page, the morons out-numbered the reasonably thinking people and the article has now had the "nomination for deletion removed".

http://www.wikihow.com/File-Federal-Inc ... -Liability

I plan on contacting the administrator that removed the nomination directly. I would hope that more people from this site will express their opinion over at Wiki-How so this tripe will be eventually taken down.

[LPC]

I posted several comments on the discussion page, and I'm sorry that it didn't any good.

There's an LH thread on the WikiHow, which is where they probably were able to draw the shills.

[webhick]

I plan on contacting the administrator that removed the nomination directly. I would hope that more people from this site will express their opinion over at Wiki-How so this tripe will be eventually taken down.

Considering wikiHow has an article about how to beat a drug test, I don't think it's going to be deleted.

[Nikki]

It should stay.

As long as the government is committed to remain in a fiscal defecit program, every bit of penalties and fines helps.

[LPC]

I've cleaned up some of the most obvious crap. We'll see how long it stays that way.

[grixit]

Go with the flow. Suggest the addition of a progress page where people can report their success in using the method.

[The Operative]

I've cleaned up some of the most obvious crap. We'll see how long it stays that way.

Yeah, I saw that. I also left a message for the administrator. If anybody else cares to leave a message about that article, you can do so at http://www.wikihow.com/User_talk:Tviren

While the article was under consideration for deletion, I also posted several times on the discussion page. I got into a rather lengthy argument with a user named MeBlu. He has a rather mixed bag of arguments including 'State' doesn't really mean any of the United States, the income tax is a capitation, the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, ala 14th amendment, etc. etc. I began by rebutting everything he said, but he just went on and on.

[webhick]

Heh, Massiah2012left a comment on my anonymous talk page:

do you know anything about how one really aquires a friv filing penalty? I have asseted my right for 5 years now and i have not been fined or lock up.

So, I replied:

File a tax return using frivolous arguments such as those found in CtC.

Not being caught yet doesn't give your arguments weight. Shoplifters don't get caught all the time. Shoplifting is still a crime.

I find it funny that he feels the need to not discuss that on the discussion page for the wikiHow article.

[The Observer]

Heh, Massiah2012left a comment on my anonymous talk page:

do you know anything about how one really aquires a friv filing penalty? I have asseted my right for 5 years now and i have not been fined or lock up.

So, I replied:

File a tax return using frivolous arguments such as those found in CtC.

Not being caught yet doesn't give your arguments weight. Shoplifters don't get caught all the time. Shoplifting is still a crime.

I find it funny that he feels the need to not discuss that on the discussion page for the wikiHow article.

I bet he hasn't been able to respond because he's now worried about the fact that he may get caught for shoplifting and convicted. People like him tend to get discombobulated when logic seeps into their brain.

[The Operative]

I have given up trying to talk some sense into a particular poster on the article's discussion page. The poster's handle is MeBlu. Anyone else care to give it a shot? I believe someone else from here was anonymously attempting to straighten him out, but gave up long before I did.

Here is an example of some of his twisted logic:

Re: United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994)
With regard to United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994), I find that, yes, should you find yourself liable for an income tax provided for by laws of the United States, its courts have jurisdiction. Also, even those laws only affective within land subject to jurisdiction provided by clause 17, section 8, article 1 are given effect throughtout the Union; as in, you cannot walk into D.C., break its law, and then seek sanctuary within a State of the Union; not as in, you can walk into a State of the Union and apply D.C. law (see the National Lotto example). As you probably already know, residency is not sufficient for citizenship; but once personal jurisdiction by citizenship is challenged, the facts of citizenship must appear on the record before jurisdiction descends – the defendant did not challenge upon citizenship, but residency only. You’ll see below that the court again unabashedly asserts the existence of a nonapportioned direct tax.

Re Mundt: residency is not citizenship
"defendant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the state of Michigan and not a resident of any 'federal zone' and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws."

Re Mundt: federal law can only be given affect within it’s jurisdiction, but the effect of transgression extends throughout the Union
"[Defendant]'s motion to dismiss advanced the hackneyed tax protester refrain that federal criminal jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, United States territorial possessions and ceded territories. [Defendant]'s memorandum blithely ignored 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3231 which explicitly vests federal district courts with jurisdiction over 'all offenses against the laws of the United States.'"

Re Mundt: Congress may create, define and punish crimes within its jurisdiction
"[Defendant] also conveniently ignored article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution which empowers Congress to create, define and punish crimes irrespective of where they are committed."

Re Mundt: again, they make no bones about the existence of a direct nonapportioned tax upon a particular polity
"For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves"

Re Mundt: summary
Again, after reviewing this opinion, I still find it not the case that "The courts have made this very clear. The income tax laws apply to everyone in the...50 states."

[webhick]

I have given up trying to talk some sense into a particular poster on the article's discussion page. The poster's handle is MeBlu. Anyone else care to give it a shot? I believe someone else from here was anonymously attempting to straighten him out, but gave up long before I did.

I'm not really good at arguing with those folks and I've been just feeling really drained for the past couple of months. Besides, it's pointless. The legality discussion confuses the admin, so the admin won't delete it for being illegal; the wackos outnumber the sane so voting is pointless; all our edits will be reverted; and people are going to follow it anyway.

Maybe a representative from the Justice Department or IRS will be so kind as to mail wikiHow's legal department a little letter about the legality of the article.