Cracking the Code - and Poor Richard's latest Almanac

[Famspear]

Poor Richardf614 has now posted, without comment, the text of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946) -- apparently with the view that Wilcox somehow is material to Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code.

See:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=631

This is pretty much consistent with the quality of Poor Richard's other posts over there, and is indicative as well of his legal expertise: Citing Wilcox, a court decision that was overruled by the United States Supreme Court over 47 years ago, in James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S. Ct. 1052, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9449 (1961). (Recall that in James, the Court ruled that under section 22(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code and section 61(a) of the 1954 Code, the receipt of embezzled funds is included in the gross income of the embezzler, even though the embezzler is required to return the funds to their rightful owner.)

Poor Richard then (unintentionally, I'm sure) adds still more comedy, by inserting a link to an editorial summary of an Ohio Supreme Court case where the Ohio court apparently ruled that a city ordinance in Euclid, Ohio -- imposing a city income tax -- did not tax an individual's lottery winnings. Again, Richardf614 does not indicate what he believes this would have to do with Cracking the Code.

By inserting the materials without comment, apparently Richardf614 assumes that the importance of an overruled federal court decision and applicability of a city income tax in Euclid, Ohio is obvious to his fellow Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots.

[RyanMcC]

Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots.

Peter Piper picked a pack of Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots;
A pack of Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots Peter Piper picked;
If Peter Piper picked a pack of Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots,
Where's the pack of Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots Peter Piper picked?

[Lambkin]

Wilcox, a court decision that was overruled by the United States Supreme Court over 47 years ago, in James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S. Ct. 1052, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9449 (1961).

Aw c'mon, if they overruled it, can't they underrule it later? Why would the corporate fat cats let the supremes tax embezzlement anyway? Sounds fishy to me; I'm sure further research will reveal a footnote that implies they really meant the opposite.

[LPC]

By inserting the materials without comment, apparently Richardf614 assumes that the importance of an overruled federal court decision and applicability of a city income tax in Euclid, Ohio is obvious to his fellow Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots.

There is lots of crap posted all the time, both in LH and SJ and other forums, that is either incoherent or at least inexplicable.

For example, in the LH thread on Hendrickson's loss, someone has just seen fit to cut-and-paste the complete Wikipedia entry on "defamation" without any hint as to why he thinks it might be relevant to anything.

Sometimes they even admit that they don't have any understanding of what they're cutting and pasting, but they think it might be helpful to someone, somewhere, who might be researching something. So they say, "Hey, I found a whole lot of citations on jurisdiction and here they are" and then paste pages of what look like randomly selected opinions that have the word "jurisdiction" in them. Absolutely useless, but it makes them feel like they've made a contribution.

[LPC]

Aw c'mon, if they overruled it, can't they underrule it later?

I've never heard it put that way, and as theoretical matter I suppose they could, but I don't think it's ever happened. As far as I can tell, once a decision gets overruled, it *stays* overrruled.

[grixit]

Can't you just write "Stet" in red ink?

[Famspear]

The comedy continues at losthorizons, as the Pinheads marvel at the usefulness of the overruled Wilcox decision (not realizing that, as law, it's been dead for 47 years). And, in a separate thread, DavidDiemer writes:

I don't know if you've noticed, but Richard614 is able to find things in the law and quote cases, opinions, appeals, etc. He seems very well-versed in the law.

Where can I go or what do I have to do to get that good at the law?

---to which Richardf614 replies:

Research everything yourself, I am not a lawyer and only offer information. There have been times that I have posted items that I did not check out first and later I find that the source misquoted a case.

I now only post a case that is complete and researched. There are to many web sites that are posting bits of cases, when you read the entire case, the posted phrase is not even stated within the case.

If you see this situation, go to legal source site and read the case for yourself.

Research and validate, do not take my opinion or ANYONE elses as the truth. Come to your own conclusions, some people promote learning and some people promote subservience.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=633

You just cannot make up stuff this hilarious.

Hey R-I-C-H-A-R-D!! WHY ARE YOU AND YOUR FELLOW PREPOSTEROUSLY PINHEADED PATRIOTS SLATHERING OVER A CASE THAT WAS OVERRULED 47 YEARS AGO???

DavidDiemer, get a clue!!

Get a clue, Richardf614!

EDIT: I picture these two hayseeds as a couple of characters from the old TV comedy Hee Haw, sittin' on the back of a wagon full of hay an' talkin' about them funny ol' city folk!

Except that the people on Hee Haw were performers, and it was tongue in cheek. DavidDiemer and Richardf614 are true rubes.

[The Operative]

A large part of the problem that I see with the Sui and LH crowds is their seemingly unflinching belief that they can somehow correctly interpret the law with absolutely no prior training. In fact, many of them believe that training in the law prevents lawyers from actually seeing the true meaning.

On another site, I actually had a person say to me...

What makes you think that I cannot interpret the law better than someone who has been trained in the law? Again, I do okay at putting two and two together.

The audacity of that statement went right over his head.

[grixit]

---to which Richardf614 replies:

Research everything yourself, I am not a lawyer and only offer information. There have been times that I have posted items that I did not check out first and later I find that the source misquoted a case.

Gosh, i wonder who it was that [s]rubbed his nose in[/s] informed him of the fact that he had posted bad quotes?

EDIT: I picture these two hayseeds as a couple of characters from the old TV comedy Hee Haw, sittin' on the back of a wagon full of hay an' talkin' about them funny ol' city folk!

Except that the people on Hee Haw were performers, and it was tongue in cheek. DavidDiemer and Richardf614 are true rubes.

A while back i opined that the Hee Haw Love Song was a good format for TP statements. Time for another verse.

I made the 1040,
for me and my sweetie
Just how it said to in
Cracking the Code

But now we're in trouble
With no help from Petey
And the judge called our filing a
Frivolous load!

[LPC]

Research everything yourself, I am not a lawyer and only offer information. There have been times that I have posted items that I did not check out first and later I find that the source misquoted a case.

I now only post a case that is complete and researched. There are to many web sites that are posting bits of cases, when you read the entire case, the posted phrase is not even stated within the case.

If you see this situation, go to legal source site and read the case for yourself.

Research and validate, do not take my opinion or ANYONE elses as the truth. Come to your own conclusions, some people promote learning and some people promote subservience.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=633

You just cannot make up stuff this hilarious.

Hey R-I-C-H-A-R-D!! WHY ARE YOU AND YOUR FELLOW PREPOSTEROUSLY PINHEADED PATRIOTS SLATHERING OVER A CASE THAT WAS OVERRULED 47 YEARS AGO???

The more interesting question would be:

Hey Richard! Have you ever gone to the legal source cite, read cases for yourself, and come to your own conclusions about what Hendrickson writes in "Cracking the Code"?

Some people promote learning, and some people promote subservience. Which are you when it comes to Hendrickson's claims?

[Famspear]

Richardf614 wrote:

Research and validate, do not take my opinion or ANYONE elses as the truth. Come to your own conclusions, some people promote learning and some people promote subservience.

That "subservience" comment is telling. Again, I've seen this over and over: Those people who point out to tax protesters the flaws in their beliefs about the law are, in the tax protesters' minds, not trying to educate them, but are instead being "subservient" to Authority, or are trying to maintain the evil status quo. This is because protesters start from the premise that the Authority Figure is bad, and then work themselves to the delusional supporting position that THEREFORE the "words" of the Authority Figure (i.e., the words of the law) must be legally invalid.

All you have to do is to read the threads at losthorizons to see this. The posts are full of repeated angry references to the law and the IRS and government in general as being "bad." It's almost a feverish, religious feeling among those people. It is that anti-government feeling, that Anti-Authority feeling, that CAUSES them to work up their delusional beliefs (there are other motivations as well, of course, such as greed, etc). In their own minds, they have reversed the order of causation; they incorrectly think that they have "discovered" that the federal income tax law is "invalid" and that this "discovery" has "caused" them to have the anti-government feelings. But it's very obvious that it's really the other way around.

Also, note that many tax protesters also argue that state and local tax laws are invalid. This is another indication that their delusion springs (at least in part) from their hatred of Authority. The hatred of Authority is the (partial) CAUSE of the delusional belief about the validity of taxation.

The phrase "do not take my opinion or ANYONE elses as the truth" is code language for: "Do not accept anything as Authority. You must decide for yourself what the law is." This is the "SteveSy approach" to the law.

I don't know how many times I have had tax protesters "accuse" me of being a "government shill", as though merely correctly stating the law is, in their minds, the same thing as supporting the evil Authority Figure. Many tax protesters are paranoid -- obsessed with the idea that anyone who disagrees with them about the nature of the tax law must somehow be motivated by a desire to uphold the Authority Figure -- the very figure that the tax protester hates and is trying desperately to tear down. These hayseeds are so driven by their anti-Authority feelings, their own hatred, their own bitterness, that they cannot countenance anyone who points out that the protesters are simply wrong on their views about the law.

[grixit]

I don't know how many times I have had tax protesters "accuse" me of being a "government shill", as though merely correctly stating the law is, in their minds, the same thing as supporting the evil Authority Figure. Many tax protesters are paranoid -- obsessed with the idea that anyone who disagrees with them about the nature of the tax law must somehow be motivated by a desire to uphold the Authority Figure -- the very figure that the tax protester hates and is trying desperately to tear down. These hayseeds are so driven by their anti-Authority feelings, their own hatred, their own bitterness, that they cannot countenance anyone who points out that the protesters are simply wrong on their views about the law.

Sounds almost like basic Freud.

[LPC]

Poor Richardf614 has now posted, without comment, the text of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946) -- apparently with the view that Wilcox somehow is material to Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code.

See:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=631

This is pretty much consistent with the quality of Poor Richard's other posts over there, and is indicative as well of his legal expertise: Citing Wilcox, a court decision that was overruled by the United States Supreme Court over 47 years ago, in James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S. Ct. 1052, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9449 (1961). (Recall that in James, the Court ruled that under section 22(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code and section 61(a) of the 1954 Code, the receipt of embezzled funds is included in the gross income of the embezzler, even though the embezzler is required to return the funds to their rightful owner.)

I just read the James opinion (for the first time), and was confused by the conclusion of the court that "petitioner's conviction may not stand and that the indictment against him must be dismissed." In other words, the petitioner, who had been convicted of tax evasion for failing to report embezzled funds as income, was set free after the court held that the funds he embezzled really should have been reported as income.

What?

After concluding that Wilcox was "wrongly decided" and that funds illegally obtained should be considered taxable income, the court went on to conclude that:

We believe that the element of willfulness could not be proven in a criminal prosecution for failing to include embezzled funds in gross income in the year of misappropriation so long as the statute contained the gloss placed upon it by Wilcox at the time the alleged crime was committed. Therefore, we feel that petitioner's conviction may not stand and that the indictment against him must be dismissed.

So the taxpayer in the James case won even though the court rejected his argument that the money he received was not income.

But that's reality. Getting back to LostHeads:

Great post, Richard!

Good thing Mr. Justice Burton was in the minority! His 'interpretations' play right into the IRS/DOJ's hands. (could he have been on the dole?)

Of course, Burton got to write the majority opinion in Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952), which held that the proceeds of extortion were taxable income, and the court in James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961), held that Rutkin had "thoroughly devitalized" and "effectively vitiated" the Wilcox decision.

[Famspear]

Now, Richardf614 has stumbled across this verbiage from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, and it's got him confused:

Income from Illicit Transactions.--In United States v. Sullivan, 40 the Court, held that gains derived from illicit traffic were taxable income under the act of 1921. 41 Said Justice Holmes for the unanimous Court: ''We see no reason . . . why the fact that a business is unlawful should exempt it from paying the taxes that if lawful it would have to pay.'' 42 Consistent therewith, although not without dissent, the Court ruled that Congress has the power to tax as income moneys received by an extortioner, 43 and, more recently, that embezzled money is taxable income of an embezzler in the year of embezzlement. ''When the taxpayer acquires earnings, lawfully or unlawfully, without the consensual recognition, express or implied, of an obligation to repay and without restriction as to their disposition, 'he has received income . . . , even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.''' 44

(bolding added).

Richardf614 now says:

Has the court contradicted itself? Appears so to me.
Ruled in 1921 and again in 1946, different results?

[ . . . ]

This is just the opposite of what they said in Wilcox or am I missing something?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... f0a62#5068

A small lightbulb is flickering in Richard's brain. The reference to the 1921 case is to Sullivan, while the 1946 reference is to Wilcox. If Richardf614 will just take the time to read the text of footnote 44, he will see:

James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961) (overruling Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946)).

Yes, Richard, before citing a case, you should first check its status. Has the case been overruled? Has it been distinguished? Limited?

So, Richard, how does one check the status of a case? Sorry, Richard, but I am not going to tell you. I would prefer to get my jollies watching you and your fellow Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots make fools of yourselves. And make no mistake about it: You are doing it to yourselves.

[LPC]

Yes, Richard, before citing a case, you should first check its status. Has the case been overruled?

Or has it been underruled?

Very important questions.

[LPC]

Latest from LostHorizons:

James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S. Ct. 1052, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9449 (1961)

My mistake, this case overruled Wilcox.

Oh, then, nevermind.

[webhick]

Latest from LostHorizons:

James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S. Ct. 1052, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9449 (1961)

My mistake, this case overruled Wilcox.

Oh, then, nevermind.

Oh, Richard, it's already too late. I'm sure that someone in the tax "honesty" movement has already started quoting from it like it's a valid case. Why? Because they don't check their sources like you failed to do. And they don't actually do their "due diligence" when researching the law, like they claim, much the way you did when you posted it without performing any yourself.

From there, I wonder which will happen first: Will it suddenly appear as a silver bullet in a de-tax package or will your fellow FIBBIES start shouting it in every forum and blog on the internet?

[notorial dissent]

Yes, Richard, before citing a case, you should first check its status. Has the case been overruled?

Or has it been underruled?

Very important questions.

Or does it even exist for that matter? Or is the quote even real and from that case? Even more important.

[grixit]

It looks very much as if Richard is still reading Quatloos.

[Imalawman]

Of course, Burton got to write the majority opinion in Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952), which held that the proceeds of extortion were taxable income, and the court in James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961), held that Rutkin had "thoroughly devitalized" and "effectively vitiated" the Wilcox decision.

Ah yes, another example of tax protesters never learning to shepardize their cases. I actually get Wilcox cited a lot in my pro se embezzlement cases. They're shocked to learn that it isn't good law.