Famspear wrote:PS: Weston, recheck your posting two steps back. You put the quotation codes in the wrong places. Also, the first quote (the one about the moot point) was not a comment from me; it was from another poster.
And who said it wsa from you? Oh that's right, it was you. Good job reading buddy... as usual of course
No, Weston, here's the quote:
Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?
That wasn’t me; that was posted by “LDE”.
Good job reading, buddy -- as usual, of course.
You do seem to have a problem keeping things like “who wrote what” straight in your mind. But then, considering that you didn’t know that the Lucas v. Earl “quotation” was by Mr. Earl, the taxpayer, and was not from the text of the Supreme Court’s opinion, I’m not surprised.
Now, what Quatloosian name is there, is it LDE, that is right, admit it, go ahead, admit to it... nowhere is your name mentioned. Geez, see what I have to deal with when surfing this forum! Goodness!
Weston White wrote:Now, what Quatloosian name is there, is it LDE, that is right, admit it, go ahead, admit to it... nowhere is your name mentioned. Geez, see what I have to deal with when surfing this forum! Goodness!
For heaven's sake, Weston, look on the second page of this very thread.
EDIT: And now, Weston, look at your posting on the third page, here:
jkeeb wrote:I don't know what you attorney's could do for WW. $110K in penalties. I guess you could write up an offer and hope some overworked RO gets it.
I was just trying to be nice...who knows what Weston has screwed up? He could at least lower the bill, establish a collection plan...I don't know, penalties are tough to get rid of.
Yeah, I have been able to get the IRS to waive some pretty good sized penalties, but they were on "failure to timely file", "failure to timely pay" -- that sort of thing. I have never had a client with section 6702 ("frivolous") penalties, and I don't recall ever trying to get such a high amount ($110,000) waived. Still, an interesting challenge...
That is because the entire thing is a hoax, a tactic of fear. Notice nobody is really complaining at LH about actually being levied, though many originally complained about receiving 6702 notices? It is total desperation on the part of the IRS to wind-down the massive awakening.
Paul wrote:Where is the quote in the Lucas decision?
It is in the Certiorari, the Famguardian site has it posted (unless both this letter and Famguardian are purposefully being dishonest)...
Good guess, Sherlock.
You do realize of course that both Justica and Findlaw have different versions posted, right? So if one could omit certain information, why could they not both omit the same information. Not that it really matters, because I do not really need SCOTUS to tell me something I already know 26 USC 61 already states, (meaning what that quote alleges, regardless, is what is as stated by the meaning of gross income, it is just good to have the supported perspective of SCOTUS, that is all). Now obviously, however, it is missed that the point that of the Lucas v. Earl quote if included as an argument by the involved parties would have been directly addressed by the Justices... so where is that discussion at?
"... That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal services."
61 (a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
...
Merely pointing out that the idiot who runs the famguardian website, Chrissy Hansen, has consistently had his butt kicked by the IRS at every single stage and will spend the rest of his life living under a tax lien, garnishments, etc.
In other words, another loser.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Weston White wrote:Now, what Quatloosian name is there, is it LDE, that is right, admit it, go ahead, admit to it... nowhere is your name mentioned. Geez, see what I have to deal with when surfing this forum! Goodness!
For heaven's sake, Weston, look on the second page of this very thread.
EDIT: And now, Weston, look at your posting on the third page, here:
And don't try to go back and edit my name out of your post; I've already PDF'd your mistake.
EDIT 2: Do you see it now? You attributed this statement to me:
Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?
I didn't write that. "LDE" did. Don't feel bad; you made a minor mistake. You make lots of huge mistakes, Weston; don't sweat the small stuff.
OMG, I think you finally hath broke, mentally. I suppose when I busted down the final Quatpillar in its flight to the ground it landed on your head.
You already PDF'ed? my mistake, well isn't that special. Anyways, yes page two contains the poster I was replying to, so what about it? And here is a a quote of my reply to that person LDE (notice Famspear nowhere in sight, nowhere to be found, nowhere to be seen):
Famspear wrote:
It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution ...
Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?
Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.
I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider). Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise from you all... sure, sure.
This post was made by Weston White who is currently on your ignore list.
Attention Weston: That's why many people aren't responding to your posts.
Talk to the IRS. They're much more likely to be interested in what you have to say than I am, and talking to them is so much more likely to be productive than screaming at the electrons.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Famspear wrote:
And, of course, this is not from the Court’s opinion in Lucas v. Earl. (If I recall correctly, Irwin Schiff once made this mistake on his web site. We've seen this over and over.)
Instead, this language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the Respondent’s brief filed by the taxpayer with the Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent.
The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the brief are physically re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself. (For a PDF copy of Mr. Earl's brief, see the University of Cincinnati Law School web site.)
Here are the original documents... http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/#nine
I love that site, I found it several years ago. I wish they had more cases. The final decisions from the SC really reveals little about the cases. Reading the briefs and transcripts really exposes the history, who they were and the underlying arguments made that were accepted and rejected on both sides.
This post was made by Weston White who is currently on your ignore list.
Attention Weston: That's why many people aren't responding to your posts.
Talk to the IRS. They're much more likely to be interested in what you have to say than I am, and talking to them is so much more likely to be productive than screaming at the electrons.
Yea, it is a damned shame that I can't iggy most of you myself. It is an absolute wonder why every Quatloosian on here has MOD status. I guess it is all apart of your individual insecurities.
P.S. I wish I could IGGY! It be so kewl ti IGGY the Q-peeps!
Weston White wrote:Now obviously, however, it is missed that the point that [sic] of the Lucas v. Earl quote if included as an argument by the involved parties would have been directly addressed by the Justices... so where is that discussion at?
Try reading this, which is part of the Court's opinion:
There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it. That seems to us the import of the statute before us and we think that no distinction can be taken according to the motives leading to the arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.
The reason you and every other cretin who misquotes the Lucas case are idiots is that you didn't bother to actually read the decision and discover that Mr. Earl lost and that his salary was taxable; or if you did, you are so deluded as to think that the Court announced a proposition of law that is the exact opposite of its actual holding.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Weston White wrote:Now, what Quatloosian name is there, is it LDE, that is right, admit it, go ahead, admit to it... nowhere is your name mentioned. Geez, see what I have to deal with when surfing this forum! Goodness!
For heaven's sake, Weston, look on the second page of this very thread.
EDIT: And now, Weston, look at your posting on the third page, here:
And don't try to go back and edit my name out of your post; I've already PDF'd your mistake.
EDIT 2: Do you see it now? You attributed this statement to me:
Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?
I didn't write that. "LDE" did. Don't feel bad; you made a minor mistake. You make lots of huge mistakes, Weston; don't sweat the small stuff.
OMG, I think you finally hath broke, mentally. I suppose when I busted down the final Quatpillar in its flight to the ground it landed on your head.
You already PDF'ed? my mistake, well isn't that special. Anyways, yes page two contains the poster I was replying to, so what about it? And here is a a quote of my reply to that person LDE (notice Famspear nowhere in sight, nowhere to be found, nowhere to be seen):
Famspear wrote:
It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution ...
Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?
Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.
I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider). Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise from you all... sure, sure.
(chuckle) I'm not sure whether you're trying to be funny, or you're just lying, Weston. You obviously added the coding to try to make the name "Famspear" disappear, but it didn't quite work.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I had done the PDF just to prove your mistake. I often PDF certain threads here, to have my own permanent record. I had PDF'd the entire thread, not just your minor mistake. And I didn't mean for you to get upset about it; I wasn't trying to play "gotcha" on this one ('though I admit I do play "gotcha" with you from time to time).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Weston White wrote:Now obviously, however, it is missed that the point that [sic] of the Lucas v. Earl quote if included as an argument by the involved parties would have been directly addressed by the Justices... so where is that discussion at?
Try reading this, which is part of the Court's opinion:
There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it. That seems to us the import of the statute before us and we think that no distinction can be taken according to the motives leading to the arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.
The reason you and every other cretin who misquotes the Lucas case are idiots is that you didn't bother to actually read the decision and discover that Mr. Earl lost and that his salary was taxable; or if you did, you are so deluded as to think that the Court announced a proposition of law that is the exact opposite of its actual holding.
yeano, I am not quite so sure about that...
The petitioner's salary as an officer of the Great Western Power Co. and fees received as an attorney were deposited in these joint accounts immediately upon receipt thereof. Mrs. Earl has at all times had the right to draw against the accounts at will.
It also appears that this case have more to do with successation taxes than anything else, though might debate salary issues as well… interesting.
Also Famspears prior post about this case, just make me realize something, or rather this just dawned upon me… all this time he know that quote was within the Certiorari, which it is: http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/chap09/281us111.pdf though he went on pretending that I had entirely made it all up that Famguardian was purposefully misquoting the case. This says a ton more about his morals and ethics. Though all his statements about who said what do not yet seem to have support within the case itself and Famspear himself does not seem willing to post the URL’s to the information he himself makes mention of. Though it must have been included in the Certiorari for a specific reason and this seems more like a judge discussing an issue, more so than an attorney arguing their case, either that or a witness of some sort making a response to a question. The paragraph is very well throughout regardless and that is exactly what 26 USC 61 was designed to do.
It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not "salaries, wages or compensation for personal service" 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 service. Salaries, wages or compensation for personal service are not to be taxed as an entirety unless in their entirety they are gains, profits and income. Since, also, it is the gain, profit or income to the individual that is to be taxed, it would seem plain that
it is only the amount of such salaries, wages or compensation as is gain, profit or income to the individual, that is, such amount as the individual beneficially receives, for which he is to be taxed.
And this is interesting to notice:
“A very forcible argument is presented to the effect that the statute seeks to tax only income beneficially received, ..”
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I had done the PDF just to prove your mistake. I often PDF certain threads here, to have my own permanent record. I had PDF'd the entire thread, not just your minor mistake. And I didn't mean for you to get upset about it; I wasn't trying to play "gotcha" on this one ('though I admit I do play "gotcha" with you from time to time).
Weston White wrote:Thanks for posting that site SteveSy.
Also Famspears prior post about this case, just make me realize something, or rather this just dawned upon me… all this time he know that quote was within the Certiorari, which it is: http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/chap09/281us111.pdf though he went on pretending that I had entirely made it all up that Famguardian was purposefully misquoting the case. This says a ton more about his morals and ethics. Though all his statements about who said what do not yet seem to have support within the case itself and Famspear himself does not seem willing to post the URL’s to the information he himself makes mention of. Though it must have been included in the Certiorari for a specific reason and this seems more like a judge discussing an issue, more so than an attorney arguing their case, either that or a witness of some sort making a response to a question. The paragraph is very well throughout regardless and that is exactly what 26 USC 61 was designed to do.
Do you still not get it, Weston?
The quoted material is not from "the certiorari."
The material is not from the Court's opinion either.
The material you quoted is from Mr. Earl's responding brief. Mr. Earl was the taxpayer. The brief was written by Mr. Earl's attorneys.
The material you quoted was not written by the United States Supreme Court. On your own web site, you falsely implied that the quoted language (actually, an excerpt from the quoted language) was a ruling by the Court.
You either knew that the language was not from the Court's opinion, or you didn't know. If you did know, then you were lying. If you didn't know, then you were incompetent. How many ways are there to say this?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Oh, by the way, Weston, the document you linked -- which contains excerpts from the taxpayer's brief I mentioned, as well as the actual text of the Supreme Court's opinion in Lucas v. Earl by Justice Oliver W. Holmes, is not "the certioriari." I should point out that you may have been confused by the references to "certiorari" on the first page (in one case, in an all-capital-letters heading) - you apparently assumed that the document itself is "the certiorari."
Wrong.
The document is a reprint of the Court's opinion, but with an introductory summary that includes some quotes or paraphrases from Mr. Earl's brief. The references to "certiorari" were references to the procedural status of the case -- the manner in which the case reached the Supreme Court.
When a party loses a case at the United States Court of Appeals (for whatever circuit) or at the highest court of a State, that party may decide to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. In most cases, this is technically not done by an "appeal" to the Supreme Court ("appeal" to the U.S. Supreme Court technically applies to something else). Instead, the party wishing to have the Supreme Court hear the case files something called a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court.
If the Court refuses to hear the case, the Court denies the petition.
If the Court decides to hear the case, the Court grants the petition and issues a writ of certiorari to the lower court, requiring the lower court to send a certified copy ("certified" and "certioriari" are related words) of the lower court's record to the Supreme Court.
The lower court does so.
The Supreme Court reviews the lower court's certified record. The parties file briefs with the Supreme Court. Maybe there is even a hearing, with oral arguments by each side.
Eventually, the Supreme Court renders a judgment and publishes a formal Opinion explaining the decision.
Lots of materials are in the Court's record by the time the case ends.
The point is that "the certiorari" is not the Court's decision.
The petition for certiorari is not the Court's decision, either.
The briefs filed by both sides are not the Court's decision.
The recordings of the oral arguments are not the Court's decision.
Technically, to be precise, even the Opinion itself -- written by the Court -- is not "the decision" either (though we lawyers sometimes use the terms interchangeably, as we know what we're talking about). The Opinion includes the decision (or decisions).
Also included in the Opinion, usually, is a summary of the facts of the case. This is technically not part of the decision.
There may be a description of the procedural history of the case (how the case got started in the lowest court, and how it made its way to the Supreme Court). This part of the Opinion is technically not part of the decision.
There is a summary of the issues presented to the Court.
Often there will be some obiter dicta (non-binding words said in passing that are presumably, hopefully, correct statements about points of law, but which are not actually points of law decided in this particular case), and further explanations of the reasoning of the Court.
Often, the actual holdings of the Court -- the actual decisions, the parts that having binding, precedential effect -- are not expressed quite so clearly so that a novice can easily distill them from the rest of the Opinion.
Often there are concurring opinions by one or more justices, and dissenting opinions as well. These are not part of the decision of the Court.
Today, the Opinion of the Court is typically printed with a "syllabus" at the top which attempts to summarize the holding(s) of the Court, but which is technically not part of the Court's opinion. (In the time of Lucas v. Earl, you saw that sometimes there was a summary of the parties' briefs -- a summary that was not clearly identified, so that non-lawyers like you would realize that you were not reading the Opinion of the Court.)
The process of learning how to analyze legal materials (court opinions or otherwise) cannot be learned by you, Weston, by reading one, or ten, or even a hundred cases -- and certainly not in the slapdash way you go about collecting "quotes" from tax protester web sites. You, Weston, cannot learn to do legal analysis in the way you seem to feel you can without going to college and then to law school, any more than you can learn to do brain surgery without going to college and then medical school to be a brain surgeon.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
You either knew that the language was not from the Court's opinion, or you didn't know. If you did know, then you were lying. If you didn't know, then you were incompetent. If you didn't know, and refuses to correct your mistake, you are a buffoon. How many ways are there to say this?
Added a line (in green) to Famspears summary of Lucasgate.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
