And the last Quatpillar hath given away!

[Gregg]

And now, for the love of Bob, can we finally quit humoring this infantile ass? He contributes nothing but dribble, he isn't here to learn or even have a serious contribution, his only purpose it to get his jollies in the only way left to his sad and pathetic life. I ask, nay I beg you all to quit replying to him, put him on ignore, bite your tongue or whatever it takes, but PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

[Weston White]

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?

Yea, I can see how it is not the certiorari, gee how did I ever miss that? ...

CERTIORARI

TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

CERTIORARI

, 280 U.S. 538, to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of
Appeals which reversed a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals upholding a tax
upon the respondent's income.

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

Yes, about that webpage you make such a big deal over all the time, that pokes fun at how your favorite website Quatloos, can't even quote the U.S. Constitution correctly (and is still to date it is incorrect), is a work in progress and no I have not checked into all the cases cited, though I am working on it, slowly but surely. At the time I was making it I was going off of quotes I have compiled from other sites I have visited, sure there are things that need to be corrected. Though I am but one person and can only do so much. Though you have yet to prove that that quote is not otherwise from SCOTUS, so you know whatever you have to say about it nothing but your opinion... especially since now that SteveSy has posted documents from the case, where that quote is in fact included in the Certiorari and just as always has been claimed... go figure. I guess you are like Tom Cruise, meaning that you obviously can't handle the truth!

lol, incompetent? It is not exactly like I get paid to do this, who are you trying to fool? I have limited means in researching and am learning as I go. Though I can honestly say that I am learning and that is all that really matters in the end.

[Weston White]

though we lawyers sometimes use the terms interchangeably, as we know what we're talking about

Oh so now you are an attorney?

As to everything else you posted, about... Or it could just be that it was the Certiorari that was sent down to the lower court, as which seems to be the case as it seems to match up with what is posted on this case at Findlaw and Justica, just with much of the information omitted.

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.)

This is mere speculation on your part, you have nothing to support such a conclusion. In your point of view a syllabus holds not value unless it supports your point of view, than when so, it is content is not debatable.

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.

Yes you can, all it takes is reading a few books. So now websites such as Cornell, Findlaw, and Justica are TP sites, huh? And comparing the craft of surgery, which requires a degree of physical training to something more natural cohesive such as reading and researching is perhaps one of the desperate attempts at justifying owns own point of view I have yet to come across. As a further example one can now obtain a J.D. online.

And no it is you who are the one playing stupid regarding this matter, not me. I have been very forthright and frank about it.

[grixit]

The cover letter has the name "Albert E. Carter" on it, and Carter also has a history.

Carter's got in trouble with the SEC for trying to sell bonds of defunct railroads at face value.

Talk about nostalgia, that's a 19th century scam!

[Weston White]

Rather than arguing about this I read through the material and this is what I found:


ORIGINATING QUOTE:

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.

The below is located on pages 12-13 bottom right side to top left side (notice above paragraph 2 is vastly different from the below paragraph two and how on the left-and side of the page the Commissioner makes silly contentions about the code by expanding its definition to read something that it never actually states): http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/chap09/earl07.pdf

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 service.

Since it is not the salary, the wage or the compensation, that is to be included, but only the gain, profit or income that may be derived therefrom, it would seem plain that salaries, wages or compensation for personal service are not to be taxes 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 posted earlier by Famspear:

“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 …”

Sort of odd being that the quote is on pages 12-13 and only pages 12-13 and there are only 15 pages in total.

[Thule]

And posted earlier by Famspear:

“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 …”

Sort of odd being that the quote is on pages 12-13 and only pages 12-13 and there are only 15 pages in total.

The scan has 15 pages. The brief has 23. Famspear referred to the brief.

[.]

Poor Weston. Wait 'till he has to face the fact that Famspear is both a lawyer and a CPA.

This whole "the certiorari" stuff is amusing. I'm not a lawyer, but have read many USSC decisions, on both reporting/archive sites and on the USSC site.

Even with exactly zero legal training, I have been able to easily figure out what was recitation of case history, or of the contentions of the parties, and to differentiate all of the miscellaneous legal housekeeping from the actual opinion of the court, and to differentiate that from any dissenting opinion(s) and/or any separate joins or dissents in whole or part.

Amazingly, our village idiot was and is unable to detect that "the certiorari" was but legal slang used by a case reporting service to describe the (rejected) arguments of one party. As in "here's why this guy thought we should hear it."

Yet, he, in his abject idiocy attempts to use the formally nonexistent ""the certiorari" to try to justify his obvious and extremely lame misquotation and misrepresentation of the facts, facts being something with which he has only a passing acquaintance.

I conclude that our village idiot is not just terminally ignorant, but also terminally stupid. And not nearly as amusing as Van Pelt, who actually appears to be mentally ill and therefore might have a valid excuse.

It must really suck to be a couple of rungs below Van Pelt on the great TP gibberish ladder.

[Demosthenes]

I guess you are like Tom Cruise, meaning that you obviously can't handle the truth!

Um, Weston. In that movie, Tom Cruise won the case, and the guy who said that Cruise couldn't handle the truth went to prison...

[Famspear]

Famspear wrote:

.....though we lawyers sometimes use the terms interchangeably, as we know what we're talking about

Weston responded with:

Oh so now you are an attorney?

Don't play dumb, Weston. You act dumb quite well naturally - so there's no need to try to fake it.

Weston wrote:

As to everything else you posted, about... Or it could just be that it was the Certiorari that was sent down to the lower court, as which seems to be the case as it seems to match up with what is posted on this case at Findlaw and Justica [sic], just with much of the information omitted.

Nice try, Weston. No cigar.

Earlier, I wrote:

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.)

Weston wrote:

This is mere speculation on your part, you have nothing to support such a conclusion. In your point of view a syllabus holds not value unless it supports your point of view, than when so, it is content is not debatable.

Mere speculation? You're saying that the above quote is mere speculation on my part? Are you lost?

I wrote:

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.

Weston responded with:

Yes you can, all it takes is reading a few books.

Right. And you are a living testament to the viability of the idea that you yourself know how to analyze legal materials, eh Weston?


Weston wrote:

So now websites such as Cornell, Findlaw, and Justica [sic] are TP sites, huh?

No, Weston, those web sites are not where you're getting your tax protester rhetoric. You copy and past legal materials from those web sites, and you get your tax protester material from tax protester web sites. I know it, and you know it. Don't play dumb. (See my comments above.)

Weston Wrote:

And no it is you who are the one playing stupid regarding this matter, not me. I have been very forthright and frank about it.

Ho, ho, hee, hee. Good one, Weston!

[Weston White]

Poor Weston. Wait 'till he has to face the fact that Famspear is both a lawyer and a CPA.

Actually, I find that odd because he specifically told me in the past that he was not an attorney that he was a CPA. So once again has lied. One more reason why one is not to trust the Quatloosian.

And of course you are going to make some silly claim yourself, you are biased in your opinions, you are on the band wagon supporting the community view, here if somebody jumps off the bridge, so do you, meanwhile I will remain standing above, watching you fall further and further away.

So far as your village idiot comments go, which are funny BTW. See what you are intentionally leaving out from your comments is that for literally months Famspear has pretended that I had made that entire comment up all on my own, when in fact he must have known (just as you must have known), the entire time that I had merely obtained it from a tax honesty site (just do a Google search on the sentences from the quote and many sites should query back), as this case and many outer court cases are frequently cited upon such sites. Though as it turns out Famspear, this entire time knew it was actually the respondents own statements included within the Certiorari, and that entire time he was boasting me as an outright liar for posting that quote. Though in actually this means, beings Famspear being a downright mentally unstable liar, that at the most this quote was a misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of what are the facts of the case.

This does not change the fact that the quote is included in the header of the Certiorari and that the quote contains a modified seconded paragraph that does not seem to be a direct quote made by the respondents themselves, that this quote must have been included for a reason, while the petitioners own quote, to which the responders were rebutting, was specifically excluded, and finally it does not change the fact that the quote that was included in the header of the Certiorari, is what section 61 of 26 USC actually prescribes, which is to say perhaps why it was included in the header of the Certiorari for good reason.

And just remember it was the village idiot who was the one that actually bother to read through the documents in an effort to discover and bring forth the facts, even though they may not favor that village idiot’s own point of view, it was not Famspear and it was definitely not you, nor your lemming-like cohorts!

[Demosthenes]

Poor Weston. Wait 'till he has to face the fact that Famspear is both a lawyer and a CPA.

Actually, I find that odd because he specifically told me in the past that he was not an attorney that he was a CPA.

I've read every post that Famspear has ever written to you on this forum. You are incorrect.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Poor Weston. Wait 'till he has to face the fact that Famspear is both a lawyer and a CPA.

Actually, I find that odd because he specifically told me in the past that he was not an attorney that he was a CPA.

I've read every post that Famspear has ever written to you on this forum. You are incorrect.

One has to wonder how long it will be before Weston cuts, pastes and edits something from famspear and when caught in the act, claims famspear altered the original.

[Imalawman]

Poor Weston. Wait 'till he has to face the fact that Famspear is both a lawyer and a CPA.

Actually, I find that odd because he specifically told me in the past that he was not an attorney that he was a CPA.

Prove it, you idiot. Once again, you invent facts to suit your fantasy.

[Weston White]

Famspear and tohers are overlooking one important facet of the thought processes used by a typical tax denier.

They have already reached their conclusion (taxes are illegal, etc., whatever) and desperately try and backfill with whatever thay can to try and prove their conclusion is correct.

Somewhere along the line they either did not learn, or have chosen to ignore the most basic of tenets for logical, critical thinking. First is your thesis or hypothesis (a question), then you research and lay out the facts (positive and negative) and then you reach a conclusion.

Example - Is an income tax legal? Arguments - 16th Amendment, court cases, IRC and so forth. Conclusion - yes.

However, in the tax denier mind it goes - Income tax is illegal! - a declarative statement (conclusion), not a question. Arguments - backfilling by misquoting sources, using incorrect cases, taking words and meaning out of context, etc. Conclusion - I was right all along.

That and getting involved in a land war in SE Asia are two classic logic traps.

No it is because they THM brings for so many fascinating facts and points out so many inconstancies, issues, and coincidences and all the while the government remains totally silent, rude, even to the point of being venomous. Therefore it becomes easy to associate the Department of Treasury to a schoolyard bully or the bratty kid caught with his hand I the cookie jar.

This all combines with people that were taught nothing about law, so they are left entirely on their own to figure it all out and they can’t depend upon people like you all, because you are just going to tell them they are flat out wrong, right out of the box, without any honest research on your part. So that basically for most leaves only the tax honesty sites. And as for you all, like or not you are biased in your view, you stand only to loose, you gain nothing from the truth… unless of course you are perhaps willing to take the Joseph Banister stance, though that takes guts and I don’t see any of you having any to speak of.

So in reality if you people want to blame somebody, blame the government for not effectively dealing with the mass-grievances’ of the people, clearly "tax protesting" is a epidemically proportioned matter of concern, clearly it is not just going to go away, and clearly it is only growing… yet the government chooses to remain silent on the matter. Perhaps they view it the same as law enforcement views traffic tickets, prostitution, and narcotics use, don’t really work to end it or even suppress it, just work to generate consistent profits from it.

[Weston White]

Poor Weston. Wait 'till he has to face the fact that Famspear is both a lawyer and a CPA.

Actually, I find that odd because he specifically told me in the past that he was not an attorney that he was a CPA.

Prove it, you idiot. Once again, you invent facts to suit your fantasy.

ROFL, go get bent... idiot.

[Weston White]

I guess you are like Tom Cruise, meaning that you obviously can't handle the truth!

Um, Weston. In that movie, Tom Cruise won the case, and the guy who said that Cruise couldn't handle the truth went to prison...

And what is your point is what exactly? Oh I get it you finally felt that you had something to post about... now that fictional movies are brought into the thread. I understand.

[Duke2Earl]

Another chicken little..... the sky is falling. Didn't Larkin of Rosie predict the end of the IRS several years ago? Hey, Weston, let's do some truth telling...

The THM, as you call it, is a small insignificant bunch of wackos and scumbags (you can choose which of those you are).

Every society for thousands of years has had taxes and often at much higher burdens than we have.

The individual tax burden in the US is relatively light compared to every industrialized country in the world.

All your bluster and bravado is going to get you is a world of hurt.

You think you are some sort of romantic hero battling against injustice when all you really are is an uneducated buffoon.

If you really did have any sense of reality you would realize that there are ways to actually promote your political agenda but you are too inept to do so.

And indeed in this country the income tax is both constitutional and enforcable against you on your wages and any point you might actually have is lost in your mindless and ignorant blather.

Honestly, all I can hope for is that someday you get in contact with actual reality. Many here have tried to help and offer good advice. But until you admit you have a problem there literally is nothing we can do. Until then, things are going to get a lot worse for you. And as much as you want to blame us and the government the whole and entire fault lies with you and you alone.

[iplawyer]

header of the Certiorari

What the hell is good ole WW talking about now? I've never seen such a header in my entire legal career.

WW what are you talking about?

[Dezcad]

See what you are intentionally leaving out from your comments is that for literally months Famspear has pretended that I had made that entire comment up all on my own, when in fact he must have known (just as you must have known), the entire time that I had merely obtained it from a tax honesty site (just do a Google search on the sentences from the quote and many sites should query back), as this case and many outer court cases are frequently cited upon such sites. Though as it turns out Famspear, this entire time knew it was actually the respondents own statements included within the Certiorari, and that entire time he was boasting me as an outright liar for posting that quote. Though in actually this means, beings Famspear being a downright mentally unstable liar, that at the most this quote was a misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of what are the facts of the case.

Actually, Famspear's first mention of this is below from http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3814

Weston White's fakery here is that the quoted words are not the words of the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, this language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the taxpayer's brief filed in that case. Guy C. Earl was the taxpayer, and the brief was written by Mr. Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some printed versions of the case, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the taxpayer's brief are re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court. The Respondent's (taxpayer's) brief is available in PDF format at the web site for the College of Law of the University of Cincinnati. See the file

http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/chap09/earl07.pdf earl07.pdf

In the case reprints that include this language (and many of them do not even show it), these excerpts are not identified as being from the taxpayer's brief in a way that non-lawyers would be able to tell. And 99.9% of all tax protesters are NOT lawyers. Tax protesters like Weston White are doomed and they don't even know it, because they lack the skills to be able to analyze legal materials, and this is a classic example. As illustrated below, the quoted words that the protesters claims are part of the ruling of the Court ARE ACTUALLY THE TAXPAYER'S LOSING ARGUMENT IN THE CASE. Tax protesters like Weston White continue to make fools of themselves by copying and pasting these materials blindly from tax protester web sites.

Once again Westy, you're wrong. At least that much has been consistent for you.

[Duke2Earl]

Enough already.... start a new topic if anyone wants to continue.....