FAQ Update

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

A few updates:

To address the allegation regarding Lucas v. Earl, Famspear keeps bringing this up for some reason; however, I keep addressing it when he does and then he never replies. Regardless, you can read my address to his allegation here:

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1237

And yet, as I read that thread at losthorizons, I see no place where Weston White actually "addresses" his fakery regarding his "quotation" from Lucas v. Earl. What is it that I am supposed to "reply" to? It is obvious that either Weston didn't know that the quoted language was not from the Court's opinion, or Weston deliberately tried to deceive his readers into thinking that the quoted language was from the Court's opinion. Another user at losthorizons even pointed out to Weston that the quote was from the "certiorari", and Weston still doesn't get it (or is playing dumb).

You see, Weston, you keep going around in circles.

[Famspear]

Here is Weston's reply at the losthorizons web site:

Now, if SCOTUS is quoting a lower court ruling, they are doing so for the purpose of factual consideration within their own trial, regardless of how brief the quote is, correct? Thus, the context of that quote becomes a decision pertaining to SCOTUS, no? So far as the case being vacated, unless it was vacated for reason pertaining to the quoted text, it is still standing, no? Or is this quote ineffective and should it just be removed, all together?

I am wondering if this is just yet one more desperate attempt on the part of the Quacklosians?

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1237

So, where are you addressing your fakery on Lucas v. Earl, Weston?

More from Weston:

That is the way I understand it as well. SCOTUS simply adopts the findings of the lower court. After all the court is a venue in which one stays on precise and exact topic, it is not meant as a soapbox for wild baseless, speculative, unsupported tangents.

That is an even better idea, just quote the paragraph as stated within the SCOTUS case and most of all their argument then dissolves. Thanks for pointing that out, heh.

So, where are you addressing your fakery on Lucas v. Earl, Weston?

Thanks that is also very helpful, do you by chance have a link and is the whole portion the quote or only between the "..."'s?

Main Entry: beneficial
1 : conferring benefits : conducive to personal or social well-being 2 : receiving or entitling one to receive advantage, use, or benefit <a beneficial legacy>
— ben·e·fi·cial·ly Listen to the pronunciation of beneficially adverb
— ben·e·fi·cial·ness noun

So, where are you addressing your fakery on Lucas v. Earl, Weston?

Now generally speaking serving as an attorney is a federal privilege.

Main Entry: privilege
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

So regardless of the reversal in decision, unless one is in a similar occupation, the content of 13, 14, and 15 are still withstanding. Besides that it seems that this case is based more to due with an inheritance or the transfer of such remuneration through a trust or private contract than the cumulative earnings or gains. Though the reference to such and the context is pertinently clear.

The thread concerning this issue has exploded over at Quackloss, in a negative capacity of course, though they seem to be ensconcing. A real shocking surprise, right?

So this issue is pretty much resolved and therefore established that the majority of those at Quackloss are simpletons.

Weston, a statement by one of the parties in the case is not an opinion of the Court itself. And a statement or position that the Court REJECTED is certainly not an opinion of the Court itself.

EDIT: For those who haven't read the original, Weston White created a web site that asks the question: What Does SCOTUS Have to Say About 'Incomes'?

Weston responds with the statement:

The following are historical Court's Findings of Fact, Rulings and Determinations from the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) as directly pertaining to the Internal Revenue Code.

And, Weston includes this "quote" from Lucas v. Earl:

It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Clearly, Weston is trying to leave the false impression that this quote is a "Findings of Fact, Rulings and Determinations from the Supreme Court of The United States." Weston is wrong. This is an argument in the taxpayer's brief filed with the Court. The taxpayer, Mr. Earl, LOST THE CASE. Mr. Earl's income was ruled to be taxable to him, even though he had already transferred ownership of that income -- by a legally valid assignment -- prior to the time he realized the income. This is the famous Assignment of Income Doctrine. The Court in this case made no distinction whatsoever between "salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services" and "gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services". That was the language of Mr. Earl's attorneys, not the language of the Court.

EDIT 2: Here is the link to Weston's web site with his fakery:

http://defendindependence.org/scotuscases.html

As of approximately 12:55 pm Central Daylight Time on Monday, April 20, 2009, the fakery is still there (Weston has not yet removed it).

[Famspear]

This seems to be a recurring theme in one form or another with Weston White: Taking something in a court case and arguing that if the court mentioned it, the court must therefore have been approving of it.

As anyone who reads court cases should know, a court often lists various opposing arguments in the case. "The taxpayer argues that this is the law." Or, "The government argues that the law is such and such."

But ultimately, a court comes to a decision. If the court rejects your argument, well, then that argument was rejected.

Tax protesters never seem to want to focus on the decision. Or, they want to argue, endlessly, that the court was wrong.

Or, even worse: Often, as Weston does, tax protesters will simply argue that the court ruled the opposite of what the court actually ruled. We recall Weston White's nonsense theory about Scottish economist Adam Smith somehow providing the authoritative legal definition or definitions for certain legal terms in the Pollock case, when the Court in Pollock actually rejected Adam Smith's definition(s). The stupidity of this tactic is astonishing. It's as if the tax protesters really want us to believe that the courts are somehow going to be fooled by some tax evader on the internet arguing that the court in a particular case ruled the opposite of what the court ruled.

[Gregg]

Contained therein is nothing but childish retort after childish retort offered on the part of the Quatloosians, e.g. "Because I say so. that is why I am right and you are wrong!" and "Nope wrong, nope wrong, nope wrong!", etc., persistently misquoting of legal citations such as Black’s Dictionary by another member here who claims that Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘capitation taxes’ as only “A poll tax.”, citing SCOTUS cases out of context by leaving out important information, which makes the quote to appear to be something that it really not, entirely ignoring and discarding Congressional hearings, the CRS Annotated Constitution (which BTW does not support the Quatloosian perception and for very good reason, this is why you will never ever see them reference it)

and I really liked that keyboard

[Red Cedar PM]

Those who thought that an income tax was not a "direct tax" had the better case, I think, and they prevailed in the Supreme Court up until the Pollock court declared that a tax on incomes from property was "direct." But the 16th Amendment made the argument academic, and those who fail to understand that are not only foolish, but also criminals if they act on their beliefs.

But it doesn't matter what the 16th amendment says, or what judges write in their opinions. Adam Smith trumps all laws, constitutional amendments, and court cases!

Regards,

Weston White

[Doktor Avalanche]

Contained therein is nothing but childish retort after childish retort offered on the part of the Quatloosians, e.g. "Because I say so. that is why I am right and you are wrong!" and "Nope wrong, nope wrong, nope wrong!", etc., persistently misquoting of legal citations such as Black’s Dictionary by another member here who claims that Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘capitation taxes’ as only “A poll tax.”, citing SCOTUS cases out of context by leaving out important information, which makes the quote to appear to be something that it really not, entirely ignoring and discarding Congressional hearings, the CRS Annotated Constitution (which BTW does not support the Quatloosian perception and for very good reason, this is why you will never ever see them reference it)

For an alleged big time revolutionary patriot, you really are a screaming baby Weston.

[The Operative]

...the CRS Annotated Constitution (which BTW does not support the Quatloosian perception and for very good reason, this is why you will never ever see them reference it)...

Yet, I have referenced it. Unfortunately for you, the annotated Constitution supports our position and not yours. If you don't believe that, it is your problem. However, 99.9% of all lawyers and 99.9% of all judges will probably agree that the annotated Constitution supports the position of most Quatloos posters and not yours.

[Demosthenes]

That's very nice, Weston, but Congressional hearings are not "the law.

How come tax cheats never quote this Congressional hearing?

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/senate_040501.pdf

Or this Congressional testimony?

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/senate_31506.pdf

[Joey Smith]

Because Weston has posted here on Quatloos! in response to people telling him that he is just flat wrong in his legal position, he will be roadkill for prosecutors.

Thanks for playing, Weston.

[BBFlatt]

But I'm sure his remarks evincing a desire to shoot supporters of the current tax system will play well for the jury.

[absdes96]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Explanations and citations on why the opinions of economist Adam Smith are not relevant to the meaning of "direct tax"in the Constitution.

Why an IRS levy to collect taxes without a court order is not a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Why a notice of lien is valid even though the form and content of the notice does not comply with the state law for recording liens.

Additional citations explaining why a "notice of levy" really is an actual levy.

Many thanks for your diligent research and work. I have referred to your FAQ many times. It was an excellent resource when I took my Fundamentals of Income Taxation course toward my CFP.

[wserra]

I had to do it the old fashioned way, pounding the information into my thick skull. Of course that was a dozen years ago or more........

Is your skull thinner now?

[LPC]

But I'm sure his remarks evincing a desire to shoot supporters of the current tax system will play well for the jury.

Like most other people who contribute to this forum, I don't consider myself to be a "supporter of the current tax system," because there are a number of things that I would like to see changed.

However, I am not under any delusion that the current tax system is unconstitutional or doesn't apply to me.

Which is WW's real grievance: that we're not willing to help him maintain his delusions.

[Melted Rabbit]

Meaningless garbage

tl;dr

[grixit]

I had to do it the old fashioned way, pounding the information into my thick skull. Of course that was a dozen years ago or more........

Is your skull thinner now?

No and x-rays of my head showed nothing.

The eggs of shape shifting alien lizards do not show up on x-rays or mri scans. You need a phrenological dowsing rod.

[absdes96]

I had to do it the old fashioned way, pounding the information into my thick skull. Of course that was a dozen years ago or more........

Should I ever grow the cajones to go law school myself (after I finish my Masters in Chemistry), I suspect I will be pounding that same info into my not-so-thin skull as well. Incidentally, the law schools in my area are waking up to the 21st century : "Hey, if we want to make more money, we need to offer night classes and part-time schedules to non-traditional (married and working) students."

[SteveSy]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Dan your FAQ is so one sided, it might as well have been written by the taxman himself.

I looked at the first "update" to your FAQ above and to no surprise you have intentionally left out quotes, which you are well aware of, that say anything other than what you want them to say. What about the Elliot Debates on direct taxes written while they were debating the construction of the constitution? What about Albert Gallatin? You quote Hamilton yet you intentionally leave out the fact that Hamilton referred to British law to justify the indirect tax on carriages yet that very country specifically and unequivocally declares income taxes to be direct taxes.

As far as King's question they didn't answer because direct taxes were expansive there wasn't a definitive list. Certainly, as chief justice Sutherland said, if it was so precise as to only include poll, capitation, and taxes on land then the answer would have been easy and they would have simply said those things. More importantly the reason you do not post those other quotes is because after simple observation the reality is you can't find a single quote during or shortly after the constitutional convention that says indirect taxes includes a tax on income generally. In fact the only quotes that do exist are those saying the exact opposite.

You're FAQ is so biased you leave out the quote from Justice Paterson but quote the others. None of the others deal with anything close to an income tax, you just formulate an opinion by using a flawed logic of affirming the consequent where A implies B. I also might add that if we were to accept what the other Justices said such as:

If it is proposed to tax any specific article by the rule of apportionment, and it would evidently create great inequality and injustice, it is unreasonable to say, that the Constitution intended such tax should be laid by that rule.

Then a tax on high rise buildings would not be a direct tax because such a tax would create inequalities between Alaska, Idaho and New York. Justice Sutherland once again pointed out the logical fallacy in that position.

Why not quote the Justice from the Hylton case that directly spoke of taxing revenue?

Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself.

- Paterson, Hylton v. U.S.

Clearly that is detrimental to you argument and that's why you didn't post it in your FAQ even though you were fully aware it existed in the case.

But in any case, the only people who will be viewing your site and accepting it as truth will be those who have already made up their mind. Of course I'm sure the real motivation is you're looking forward to having your name quoted in more court cases where the government wins and by the Taxman himself.

[Famspear]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Dan your FAQ is so one sided, it might as well have been written by the taxman himself.

I looked at the first "update" to your FAQ above and to no surprise you have intentionally left out quotes, which you are well aware of, that say anything other than what you want them to say. What about the Elliot Debates on direct taxes written while they were debating the construction of the constitution? What about Albert Gallatin? You quote Hamilton yet you intentionally leave out the fact that Hamilton referred to British law to justify the indirect tax on carriages yet that very country specifically and unequivocally declares income taxes to be direct taxes.

As far as King's question they didn't answer because direct taxes were expansive there wasn't a definitive list. Certainly, as chief justice Sutherland said, if it was so precise as to only include poll, capitation, and taxes on land then the answer would have been easy and they would have simply said those things. More importantly the reason you do not post those other quotes is because after simple observation the reality is you can't find a single quote during or shortly after the constitutional convention that says indirect taxes includes a tax on income generally. In fact the only quotes that do exist are those saying the exact opposite.

You're FAQ is so biased you leave out the quote from Justice Paterson but quote the others. None of the others deal with anything close to an income tax, you just formulate an opinion by using a flawed logic of affirming the consequent where A implies B. Why not quote the Justice that directly spoke of taxing revenue?

Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself.

- Paterson, Hylton v. U.S.

Clearly that is detrimental to you argument and that's why you didn't post it in your FAQ even though you were fully aware it existed in the case.

But in any case, the only people who will be viewing your site and accepting it as truth will be those who have already made up their mind. Of course I'm sure the real motivation is you're looking forward to having your name quoted in more court cases where the government wins and by the Taxman himself.

Steve, the FAQ runs for over 250 pages, with innumerable arguments by tax protesters. What's so special about the materials you've cited? Answer: Nothing. Indeed, much of these materials (Gallatin, for example) are not only secondary authority, they have already been shot down by the courts.

Every tax protester/tax denier has his or her own theory about which "source" is the most cogent in favor of his arguments, Steve. There's nothing special about any of the material you cited.

By the way, I wish I had a nickel for every time some tax protester somewhere used the name "Gallatin." This highlights another problem for tax protesters: the unwillingness to give up on failed arguments.

Steve, your argument is a little different, of course. You're arguing that the omission of "Gallatin", etc., makes the FAQ "one-sided."

I respectfully disagree.

[Imalawman]

Well, Steve, I understand your point, but it is HIS FAQ and he's simply putting forth HIS position. He's not obligated to engage in a full-blown discussion of the issues. I also think that you'll find among tax lawyers that there are very few that would argue that an income tax is a direct tax - as the law now stands. We've had this debate and the matter has generally been decided that its an indirect tax. If I were writing the FAQ, I'm not sure I would bother including something that I thought was generally not debated in the legal community.

[SteveSy]

Steve, the FAQ runs for over 250 pages, with innumerable arguments by tax protesters. What's so special about the materials you've cited? Answer: Nothing. Indeed, much of these materials (Gallatin, for example) are not only secondary authority, they have already been shot down by the courts.

Of course its inconsequential authority when it proves you wrong. However all evidence no matter how ridiculous that supports your conclusion is always important. btw, show me where Gallatin was shot down by the courts....my guess is you just made that up.

Every tax protester/tax denier has his or her own theory about which "source" is the most cogent in favor of his arguments, Steve. There's nothing special about any of the material you cited.

Again, its not special because its contradictory to your and the courts position.

By the way, I wish I had a nickel for every time some tax protester somewhere used the name "Gallatin." This highlights another problem for tax protesters: the unwillingness to give up on failed arguments.

[yawn]

Its not an argument its historical fact. Its amusing you call it a failed argument but refuse to acknowledge that none of you including the courts has ever produced a single quote during or shortly after the adoption constitution that says an indirect tax includes a tax on income generally and that the only quotes that exist say they exact opposite, and there are many.

Yes the arguments will fail in court but that does not make the courts right. I'm absolutely sure I can go to any court in any country and no matter how egregious the government operates there you will find the courts have proven that trying to receive justice against those actions will produce failed arguments. Using your theory every oppressive regime out there is operating fairly and the people have no reason to argue the government is operating illegally or unjustly. You seem to hold this insane belief that U.S. federal courts are somehow different than every other court system in the history of the world and are impervious to anything that might have happened to them.

Steve, your argument is a little different, of course. You're arguing that the omission of "Gallatin", etc., makes the FAQ "one-sided."

I respectfully disagree.

Whatever, when someone writing a FAQ intentionally avoids putting in any information that contradicts their position then it is one sided plain and simple. You can't quote a few justices to show your position is valid, using the A implies B method, and then act like other quotes within the same case that specifically address your position do not exist that potentially prove you wrong.