LH'rs are pathetic

[.]

CtC's many successes

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, it's mainstream CTC "thought."

[Dezcad]

This reminds me of how Weston White writes, is that you Weston?

No, that is the correct usage of the word, perhaps your a tad bit confused. You probably already knew that though, right?

One of its uses is for posing questions, mainly, though that is not its only use.

(bolding added) I think you meant "you're"......

The distinction for the usage of who or whom is related to the subjective or objective, not whether it is in a question or not.

so

Nope, those silly things, coupled with those several low-level IRS "employees", whom still have not grasped the concept.

should be

Nope, those silly things, coupled with those several low-level IRS "employees", who still have not grasped the concept.

since it is being used in the subjective sense not the objective.

http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/wh ... -whom.aspx
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/wh ... mplex.aspx


HTH

[Demosthenes]

Yes, isn’t just exceptionally amazing that even with the advent of digital technology and the sophistication of current computer software, image and document letter scanning and conversion algorithms, multitasking processors, high speed intranet, and highly complex and cross checking databases, and mainframe servers, all combined with a near endless budget, the IRS cannot even bother to fashion together a simple routine within their own processing modules that automatically flags and reroutes all returns which claim a refund that is say larger than, equal to, or within a given percentage [e.g. 95% or greater than] of the amounts reportedly withheld by each individual, or that include specific forms along with their filing, or something to the above effect.

Your ignorance of both the IRS' computer systems and the agency's budget are really quite astounding.

I mean after all, 60-million ‘taxpayers’ cannot be wrong… now can they? But let us not fool ourselves, they are most likely the same folks that cannot tell which country borders our Northern states.

You think there are 60 million tax protesters? That's so cute.

[Demosthenes]

(1) Yes rich people have joined the Tax Honesty/Patriot Movements, there are many, you know that there are, stop pretending there are not. Not as many in ratio to middle and lower class, but that is the ratio of rich to poor anyways, less rich and more poor.

Sorry, Weston. The number of rich tax protesters is microscopic. I post every wealthy tp case I can find here on Q simply because the cases are such an anomoly.

(3) There are rich people that have even funded or bank roll factions of the Tax Honesty and Patriot Movements.

And yet, the TH and Paytriot movements are desperately begging for money...

[Judge Roy Bean]

So-called "rich people" don't need to join a TP/TD group, and unfortunately people like Weston contribute to the financial destruction of thousands of people.

[Demosthenes]

(1) Yes rich people have joined the Tax Honesty/Patriot Movements, there are many, you know that there are, stop pretending there are not. Not as many in ratio to middle and lower class, but that is the ratio of rich to poor anyways, less rich and more poor.

Sorry, Weston. The number of rich tax protesters is microscopic. I post every wealthy tp case I can find here on Q simply because the cases are such an anomoly.

Question. Are the few rich people who turn up as "tax protestors" really tax protestors, or just extraordinarily greedy piggies who are merely disguising their naked avarice in "tax protestor" language in a thinly disguised attempt to give their greed a veneer of righteousness?

Wesley Snipes, Robert Beale, etc. are most definitely tax deniers.

[Cpt Banjo]

[The IRC is an Indirect Tax, that means there has [sic] to be ways to avoid being subject to it (and no not earning a living is not meant as a way), otherwise the IRC would be unconstitutional as it would violate the Constitution [sic] many tax related enumerations.

Wrong. Avoidability is not the test of an indirect tax. If you think it is, cite a case so holding. The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument over 100 years ago:

But it is asserted that it was decided in the income tax cases that, in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the meaning of the Constitution, it must be ascertained whether the one upon whom by law the burden of paying it is first cast can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct in the constitutional sense, and, hence, however obvious in other respects it might be a duty, impost, or excise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uniformity, and must be apportioned. From this assumed premise it is argued that death duties cannot be shifted from the one on whom they are first cast by law, and therefore they are direct taxes requiring apportionment.

The fallacy is in the premise. It is true that in the income tax cases the theory of certain economists by which direct and indirect taxes are classified with reference to the ability to shift the same was adverted to. But this disputable theory was not the basis of the conclusion of the court. The constitutional meaning of the word direct was the matter decided. Considering that the constitutional rule of apportionment had its origin in the purpose to prevent taxes on persons solely because of their general ownership of property from being levied by any other rule than that of apportionment, two things were decided by the court: First, that no sound distinction existed between a tax levied on a person solely because of his general ownership of real property, and the same tax imposed solely because of his general ownership of personal property. Secondly, that the tax on the income derived from such property, real or personal, was the legal equivalent of a direct tax on the property from which said income was derived, and hence must be apportioned. These conclusions, however, lend no support to the contention that it was decided that duties, imposts and excises which are not the essential equivalent of a tax on property generally, real or personal, solely because of its ownership, must be converted into direct taxes, because it is conceived that it would be demonstrated by a close analysis that they could not be shifted from the person upon whom they first fall. The proposition now relied upon was considered and refuted in Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 , 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522, where the court said ( p. 515, L. ed. p. 791, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 525):

'The commands of the Constitution in this, as in all other respects, must be obeyed; direct taxes must be apportioned, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States. But while yielding implicit obedience to these constitutional requirements, it is no part of the duty of this court to lessen, impede, or obstruct the exercise of the taxing power by merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular nature of a specified tax, where such distinction rests more upon the differing theories of political economists than upon the practical nature of the tax itself.

'In deciding upon the validity of a tax with reference to these requirements, no microscopic examination as to the purely economical or theoretical nature of the tax should be indulged in for the purpose of placing it in a category which would invalidate the tax. As a mere abstract, scientific, or economical problem, a particular tax might possibly be regarded as a direct tax, when as a practical matter pertaining to the actual operation of the tax it might quite plainly appear to be indirect. Under such circumstances, and while varying and disputable theories might be indulged as to the real nature of the tax, a court would not be justified, for the purpose of invalidating the tax, in placing it in a class different from that to which its practical results would consign it. Taxation is eminently practical, and is, in fact, brought to every man's door, and for the purpose of deciding upon its validity a tax should be regarded in its actual, practical results, rather than with reference to those theoretical or abstract ideas whose correctness is the subject of dispute and contradiction among those who are experts in the science of political economy.'

Knowlton v. Moore, 148 U.S. 41, 81 (1900)

If they want to tax the population’s earnings, then implement a Direct Tax in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't require an apportioned direct tax to tax earnings. If you think it does, cite just one case so holding.

[Prof]

(1) Yes rich people have joined the Tax Honesty/Patriot Movements, there are many, you know that there are, stop pretending there are not. Not as many in ratio to middle and lower class, but that is the ratio of rich to poor anyways, less rich and more poor.

Sorry, Weston. The number of rich tax protesters is microscopic. I post every wealthy tp case I can find here on Q simply because the cases are such an anomoly.

Question. Are the few rich people who turn up as "tax protestors" really tax protestors, or just extraordinarily greedy piggies who are merely disguising their naked avarice in "tax protestor" language in a thinly disguised attempt to give their greed a veneer of righteousness?

Most, but not all, seem to be either greedy little pigs or folks who are off their rockers (e.g., the fellow who wanted to kill the judge in the Midwest). Simkanian may be an exception?

[Red Cedar PM]

Not that it really matters, but all of the lower court and tax court cases you folks cite all use that magic language, none of them use plain English. You have to honestly wonder why that is, if not you are simply fooling yourselves.

Yeah, CtC cases have lots of magic language, like "Petitioner's arguments are patently frivolous," "Judgement in favor of respondent," and at the appellate level, "Affirmed." Why do you think you or anyone else will be successful with CtC when THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DAMN BOOK ALREADY LOST TWICE AND IS ABOUT TO GO TO JAIL????

[Nikki]

correction: three times and jail again.

[Tax Protester]

(bolding added) I think you meant "you're"......

The distinction for the usage of who or whom is related to the subjective or objective, not whether it is in a question or not.

Here let me put it in a way that you might be capable of understanding… You are not worth neither the apostrophe nor the ‘e’. Comprehend? If you want to debate semantics, you are on the forum.

[Tax Protester]

Your ignorance of both the IRS' computer systems and the agency's budget are really quite astounding.

Not sure what you mean, are you not purvey to current technological capabilities of computers? Money what do you mean? With all that money take in from CtCers they would have a near endless budget… that is if we are to believe what you folks say. Haha, Now that is entertainment!

You think there are 60 million tax protesters? That's so cute.

No I think there are 60 million ‘taxpayers’… just like I said. Probably much less now though, all things considered. Your ability in reading comprehension is not surprising to me at all.

[Tax Protester]

Sorry, Weston. The number of rich tax protesters is microscopic. I post every wealthy tp case I can find here on Q simply because the cases are such an anomoly.

Please stop referring to me as Weston, thank you.

The ratio is small, just as I had said, thanks for emphasizing it once again though, it really needed that extra attention brought to it (I guess). Not every person that files in accordance with the law rather than the status quo goes to court.

And yet, the TH and Paytriot movements are desperately begging for money...

Overstate much? Besides are they not entitled to earn something in exchange for their efforts? Are they not entitled to have something to show for their efforts in a similar way to those that run stores dolling out crap from 3rd world slave nations or cancer causing synthetic foods or that produces alcohol or tobacco products or gasoline or guns or ammo or pornography?

No they should have to be poor and broke all the time, right? Get serious. Truly, that is an absolutely dumb comment for somebody to make.

[Tax Protester]

Question. Are the few rich people who turn up as "tax protestors" really tax protestors, or just extraordinarily greedy piggies who are merely disguising their naked avarice in "tax protestor" language in a thinly disguised attempt to give their greed a veneer of righteousness?

What? Did you by any chance “cross your streams”?

Why I don’t know why not ask Snipes, you need his address? Oh you know how to get a hold of him, right?

[Tax Protester]

And yet, with plenty of money for top notch legal counsel, relying on tried and true "tax denier" arguments resulted in what for them? If I remember correctly, Beal e got prison tie AND he still owed the taxes, interest and penalties. Snipes could do prison time AND he still owes the taxes, with interest and penalties.

Negative, Snipes used a very, very, very bad arguments, made stupid comments in view of the public, which included the MSM, and then showed cowardice in the end begging for mercy in the corner of the court.

Sadly, Snipes was used and abused by the group he hooked up with, they ran him into the ground.

CtC is has nothing to do with Snipes beliefs. I would have thought you would have at least known that, are you not the expert? That is strange.

Instead, "tax protestors" keep trying to flog the dead horse in the magical hopes that maybe this time, using the right words, in the right way will magically make their tax problem go away. "That's some real good logic there Lou."

Yea something surely needs a flogging, and it is certainly not the horse… ahum…

[Tax Protester]

Wrong. Avoidability is not the test of an indirect tax. If you think it is, cite a case so holding. The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument over 100 years ago:

The correct citation and link are included below; however, that case appears to be discussing shifting the burden of payment to another. That is not what I mean by outright ‘tax avoidance’, ‘tax avoidance’ so far as ‘Indirect Taxes’ are concerned is every individuals right and is entirely legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&invol=41
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

“I live in Alexandria, Virginia. Near the Supreme Court chamber is a toll bridge across the Potomac. When in a rush I pay the Dollar toll and get home early. However, I usually drive a free bridge outside the downtown section of the city, and cross the Potomac on a free bridge. The bridge was placed outside the downtown Washington D.C. area to serve a useful social service: getting drivers to drive the extra mile to help alleviate congestion during rush hour. If I went over the toll bridge and through the barrier without paying the toll, I would be committing tax evasion. If, however, I drive the extra mile and drive outside the city of Washington, I am using a legitimate, logical and suitable method of tax avoidance, and I am performing a useful social service by doing so. For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life today is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists.” – United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

The Constitution doesn't require an apportioned direct tax to tax earnings. If you think it does, cite just one case so holding.

Yes is does, read U.S. Constitution AI, S2, C3 and AI, S9. C4. That is what is meant by a ‘Capitation Tax’, several cases relative to this have been cited already on this forum. If you need further citations, review a book called ‘Wealth of Nations’ by Adam Smith, which is where the Founding Fathers among other things, developed their understanding of what ‘Capitation Taxes’ are.

Actually, as well it does appear that there is some great information in your Knowlton case that you yourself cited:

"On the other hand, it was asserted that, in principle, direct taxes, in the constitutional sense, embraced not only taxes on land and capitation taxes, but all burdens laid on real or personal property because of its ownership, which were equivalent to a direct tax on such property, and it was affirmed that the pre- [178 U.S. 41, 81] vious adjudications of this court had settled nothing to the contrary. The issues which were thus presented in the Pollock Case, it will be observed, had been expressly reserved in Scholey v. Rew,"

“Whether direct taxes in the sense of the Constitution comprehend any other tax than a capitation tax and a tax on land, is a question not absolutely decided, nor is it necessary to determine it in the present case, as it is expressly decided that the term does not include the tax on income”

And perhaps I am just missing it but I see no “Income Tax” or tax on “wages” or “labor” or “compensation for services”, etc., etc., anywhere in there (from 1791-1816):

“Federal excises during the first generation after the Constitution.
I. Washington's administration.
March 3, 1791, chap. 15, 14, 15, on distilled spirits; not uniform or proportionate to strength. No tax on country distilleries using homemade materials.
May 8, 1792, chap. 32, 1, on distilled spirits; country distillers taxed differently from those in cities, towns, and villages; 11, no drawback on any quantity less than 100 gallons.
June 5, 1794, chap. 45, 1, on carriages. Contains some exemptions. ( Discussed in Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 1 L. ed. 556.)
June 5, 1794, chap. 48, on licenses for making certain sales of wines or foreign distilled spirituous liquors.
June 5, 1794, chap. 51, 1, 2, on snuff and refined sugar; 14, no drawback on any quantity less than $12 worth. (Discussed in Pennington v. Coxe, 2 Cranch, 33, 2 L. ed. 199.)
June 9, 1794, chap. 65, 1, on auction sales; with exemption of judicial sales, sales of goods distrained or in insolvency; and of sales of produce of land, when sold on the land where produced, etc.; and of sales 'of any farming utensils, stock, or household furniture by persons removing from the place of their former residence, where the amount . . . shall not exceed $200.'
March 3, 1795, chap. 43, 1, on mortars and pestles, etc., in snuff mills; 8, no drawback on any exports of snuff less than 300 lbs.
May 28, 1796, chap. 37, 1, on carriages, with exemptions.
II. Period of war of 1812.
July 24, 1813, chap. 21, 1, on refined sugar.
July 24, 1813, chap. 24, 1, on carriages, with exemptions.
July 24, 1813, chap. 25, 1, on licenses for distilling liquors.
July 24, 1813, chap. 26, 1, on auction sales; 1/4 of 1 per cent on sales of vessels; 1 per cent on other sales of goods, etc., with exemptions.
August 2, 1813, chap. 39, 4, on licenses for retailing wines, etc.; one rate for cities, towns, and villages, another for the country.
August 2, 1813, chap. 53, 1, 2, on bank notes, etc., graduated but not ad valorem; commutable at 1 1/2 per cent on dividends.
December 15, 1814, chap. 12, 1, on carriages, graduated but not ad valorem.
December 21, 1814, chap. 15, 1, on distilled spirits.
December 23, 1814, chap. 16, 1, on auction sales; 3, on retailers' licenses.
January 18, 1815, chap. 22, 1, on domestic manufactures. Various specific and ad valorem rates, with exemptions, as umbrellas under $2, boots under $5 a pair.
January 18, 1815, chap. 23, 1, on household furniture kept for use ( annual duty) with minimum of $200, graudated but not ad valorem. The unit is the family; 13, exemption of books, etc.; 14, exemption of certain charitable, religious, or literary institutions.
February 27, 1815, chap. 61, on plate.
April 19, 1816, chap. 58, 4, on licenses for distilling liquors.”

I will definitely have to read through that thoroughly, appears to be a lot of great information. Thanks for the citation.

Furthermore, there is another problem with your assertion on how the IRC is to be applied…

“‘The Communist Manifesto’, a book written in 1847 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the ‘Communist Party’, contains a ten (10) plank system to achieving "Communism" and that step two (2) of that ten plank system states the following: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” [ergo, the present ‘status quo’ misinterpretation of the Federal Income Tax; see: ‘Revenue Act of 1862’ and ‘Revenue Act of 1913’] and that step five (5) of that ten plank system states the following: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” [ergo, the (privately owned) Federal Reserve Bank; see: ‘Federal Reserve Act of 1913’, 12 USC Chapter 3, and 31 USC 5103]; that 50 USC 841 – ‘Findings and declarations of fact’ defines the ‘Communist Party of the United States’.”

[Tax Protester]

THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DAMN BOOK ALREADY LOST TWICE AND IS ABOUT TO GO TO JAIL????

lol, do you have personal issues that you frequently feel compelled to address during your group sessions?

Simple answer, we CtCers, if you have not noticed are evolving and omnipresent. Have you read PH’s briefs? He is going to stomp all over the whinny and desperate DOJ, his attorney is heading in the right direction.

[Lambkin]

Simple answer, we CtCers, if you have not noticed are evolving and omnipresent. Have you read PH’s briefs? He is going to stomp all over the whinny and desperate DOJ, his attorney is heading in the right direction.

Well I guess my other question has been answered... truly delusional. Pete might or might not be convicted of the criminal charges, but that has almost nothing to do with whether CtC continues to fail all serious tests. The only successes are the ones that remain unchallenged. Every time a purported CtC filer meets the enforcement hammer he gets pounded flat. The ones who think they have a victory simply haven't met the hammer yet. The lucky ones are the little fleas who never had much tax liability in the first place and so stand some chance of going unnoticed.

[Demosthenes]

He is going to stomp all over the whinny and desperate DOJ, his attorney is heading in the right direction.

And yet, Pete hired a new attorney this week...

[Dezcad]

(bolding added) I think you meant "you're"......

The distinction for the usage of who or whom is related to the subjective or objective, not whether it is in a question or not.

Here let me put it in a way that you might be capable of understanding… You are not worth neither the apostrophe nor the ‘e’. Comprehend? If you want to debate semantics, you are on the forum.

I didn't intend to debate semantics, but merely was stating that your misuse of the word "whom" was indicative of Weston White - as I discussed in an earlier post in another thread. And it was misused in one of Weston's web pages. Maybe you are not him, but you make the same grammatical errors that he has.

And I agree, I am on the forum.