Losthead Thillum Unhappium - Robert Souza

[LPC]

If anyone knows where to find the official reports on Pete Hendrickson's case, I would be very appreciative.

Technically speaking, there are as yet no "official reports" of any of Hendrickson's caseS (plural) because none of the decisions in any of his cases have yet been published in any official reporter (such as the West Federal Reporter system, which reports decisions of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals).

The best way to get copies of unpublished orders and rulings in Hendricksons caseS (plural) is through PACER. There are pointers to some of those rulings at http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

If you meant something different by "official reports" than what I have described above, then you'll have to be more specific.

So, Indirect tax, is an excise tax that must be apportioned equally among the states

This is wrong in several ways. Excise taxes are NOT apportioned, but must be uniform throughout the states. And apportionment is by its nature unequal, because it is proportionate based on population.

Understand, that if FEDERAL INCOME TAX was a direct tax, this inherently would imply that the freedom to pursuit life, liberty and property is a farce, because in effect what you make is to a lesser degree in servitude, aka slavery.

That (and the stuff that follows it) is simply your opinion.

Therein is the legal entity known as you written in all capital letters; ROBERT SOUZA is not Robert Souza.[/quote]
Nonsense. You (and others) just make this kind of stuff up, because there is no statute or court decision to support your statement. Quite the opposite, in fact:

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

“Defendant Glenn Stinson argues that the case should be dismissed or “quashed” on the grounds that: ... 4) GLENN STINSON and NAOMI STINSON, as spelled in all capital letters in the caption of this case, are “tombstone names,” and therefore, are “nonliving persons” who have never conducted any business in Oklahoma; ....

“Defendant Glenn Stinson purports to be confused as to whether the Government’s complaint in this proceeding is directed at “Glenn Stinson and Naomi Stinson” or against “GLENN STINSON and NAOMI STINSON.” The difference between the fully capitalized and the first-letter capitalized versions of the Defendants’ names is immaterial, and provides no defense to the claims asserted by the Government.”

United States v. Glen H. Stinson et al., 2005 TNT 160-2, No. CIV-03-50-R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Okla. 7/22/2005) (tax assessments reduced to judgment and fraudulent conveyances set aside).

“Plaintiff also contends that the person designated as “MOGI JASON ROFICK” in all capital letters on the IRS notices is a fictitious entity created by the IRS with the purpose of taking title to his property as his name is “Mogi Jason Rofick,” designated by both capital and lower case letters. The Court finds this argument to be frivolous.”

Mogi J. Rofick v. Commissioner, 87 AFTR2d ¶2001-1003, 2001 TNT 112-95, No. 00-CV-74333-DT (U.S.D.C. E.D.Mich. 5/9/2001) (complaint to abate taxes dismissed).

“In his various motions to strike, plaintiff seeks to have the court strike a number of the United States’ filings from the record of this case, on the basis that these filings are ‘directed to a person not a party to this instant case.’ More specifically, plaintiff complains that the United States’ filings have been directed to a person named CRIS TIMOTHY HILLMAN, whose name is spelled in bold, capital letters, in contrast with plaintiff’s name, which is spelled in upper and lower case letters, which are, according to him ‘proper English.’ [Footnote omitted] Plaintiff contends that the person CRIS TIMOTHY HILLMAN ‘is either a dead person or a corporate fiction’ who is not a party to this case.

“To the extent that the mere usage of a boldface font or all capital letters may be considered a misspelling of plaintiff’s name -- a proposition which the court seriously doubts -- it is an error which is purely technical in nature. In some instances, the law will not countenance technical errors. However, the misspelling of a party’s name on a pleading or filing in an action in a United States District Court is not one of those instances. Such an error in this situation must be considered one of form not substance, and assuming that a party receives the document containing the misspelling and realizes it is directed to him, no reason exists not to hold that party to have notice of the document’s contents. Here, plaintiff must have received the documents containing the alleged misspellings, for he has moved to strike them. Because they were sent to his address, contained the case caption, and were identified by the correct case number, the court finds that he must have realized they were directed to him -- how could he not recognize this? In summary, because the manner in which plaintiff’s name is spelled, printed, or punctuated on filings in this case does not, in the court’s view, impact on the substance of the pleadings, the court denies plaintiff’s motions to strike as meritless.”

Cris Timothy, Hillman v. Secretary of Treasury, 85 AFTR2d ¶2000-707, 2000 TNT 111-13, No. 1:99cv136 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 3/28/2000).

“Wright brings what he has labeled a ‘motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s lack of standing and misjoinder of parties.’ First, he contends that since the amended complaint states that this action is brought against ‘FLOYD A. WRIGHT’ and his name is ‘Floyd A. Wright’, he is not the proper defendant. ... These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.”

United States v. Wright, 83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-533, KTC 1998-630, No. S-94-1183 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Cal. 1998), (action by United States to reduce assessed taxes to a judgment against the defendant).

See also, United States v. Furman, 168 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D. La. 2001) (rejecting criminal defendant’s contention that he was not properly identified in federal government documents that misspelled his name or used his properly spelled name in all capital letters); United States v. Lindsay, 184 F.3d 1138, 1144 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 981 (1999),(affirming a district court decision not to reduce a tax protester’s prison sentence because, among other things, the tax protester claimed not to be the person named in the court documents); Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) (calling “baseless” defendant’s contention that the indictment must be dismissed because his name, spelled in capital letters, “is a fictitious name used by the government to tax him improperly as a business”); United States v. Washington, 947 F.Supp. 87, 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); United States v. Feinstein, 717 F.Supp. 1552, 1557 (S.D.Fla. 1989).

In Rev. Rul. 2005-21, 2005-14 I.R.B. 822, the IRS confirmed that arguments concerning the formatting of a taxpayer’s in capital letters are “frivolous” and can result in civil and criminal penalties.

The claim that “[a] taxpayer is not obligated to pay income tax because the government has created an entity separate and distinct from the taxpayer—a ‘straw man’—that is distinguishable from the taxpayer by some variation of the taxpayer’s name, and any tax obligations are exclusively those of the ‘straw man,’ or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005-21, 2005-14 I.R.B. 822“ has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.

[The Observer]

Is FEDERAL INCOME TAX a direct or indirect tax and why?

Every time I see a TP ask this question, I know at that point we are entering trolldom. The question gets answered (as an example, several times in this thread) and the TP moves onto another subject without any direct acknowledgement that their question was answered and that the answer showed that the income tax is a legal constitutional tax and that the TP's belief about income taxes is essentially wrong.

But then again, no one can ever accuse TPs of having cornered the market on intellectual honesty.

[Gregg]

FYI: Gregg, your testing my patience, thank you.
I'd be sorry about that if I cared about what you thought, but I honestly don't. But the truth of the matter is I am not greedy.Sure you are You are biased.I'll stipulate to that charge, I'm against idiocy Understand that less than 1% of the world's population controls more than 50% of the worlds wealth...and I'm proud to say I might be part of that 1%, unlike most tax protestors I know, my return isn't over a $00 refund instead of a $500 refund, I actually pay taxes, and every quarter I mail the IRS a check that has more digits in front of the decimal than you make in a year and I'm sure you might be familiar with the federal reserve act of 1913. Please don't get me started on that, when I was a grad student I interned at one of the Federal Reserve banks, and no, the Queeen of England doesn't own the FedBesides you sound like a hater; your positions delve within the realms of existence that register below the level of integrity.No, my positions are brutally honest, which I'm sure offends you because deep down you know that they are, and your positions are going to cause you a bit of trouble eventually Meaning, to be blunt you are wasting life.Surely...I'm an athiest, too, does that make it easier for you to cope? To be of service, be productive, meaning provide something that will benefit the greater whole and or situation at hand.unless and until you know a bit more about me, I think that's kind of arroant to say. I give large amounts to charity, I employ 114 people and in the USA too, with a living wage, I'm not mean to old people and I don't abuse puppies or kittens...oh, and I pay my taxes, which is something you can't say

In short, I'll stick by my earlier observations, that you're a greedy self centered idiot who is so convinced he's smarter and knows more about a system in which he has no formal education or practical experience than people with both, that he's willing to toss his wife and kids under the bus for about $400. You're wrong on your view of the law. Your greedy, self centered, narcissistic and not too bright either from what I can tell. Good luck with that!

[Imalawman]

Riddle me this. Is FEDERAL INCOME TAX a direct or indirect tax and why?

It doesn't matter, because indirect taxes have only one limitation (they must be uniform throughout the states), and the income tax meets that requirement, and direct taxes have only one limitation (they must be apportioned), and the 16th Amendment says the apportionment requirement doesn't apply to income taxes.

So riddle me this: why do you think it matters?

See my post viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5495in this forum that has an 80 page paper written by a noted tax expert on this discussion. There is no need to repeat the answer here. Suffice to say, an income tax is an excise or indirect tax.

[Thillum]

Ooo, I can feel the venom drippin.

Thank you LPC for the info and useful response.

Lol, how am I changing the subject? Given the title of this post, isn't everything I say on subject? =P

The rest of the responses were argumentum ad hominem and pointless... Gregg you have my blessings. I see you don't understand how insulting someone is actually a compliment. In order to insult someone you must lower yourself to the level of the insult..

Here's some quotes for you:
“To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish”
“A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood”
“If you wish to know the mind of a man, listen to his words.”

Interesting to note that some of you clearly use the terminology so well; TP is taxpayer i'm assuming. Federal income tax only applies to TPs. I'm in the process of abrogating all evidence that signifies that I am a TP.

Fyi, my diction was to emphasis my point, its the beauty of language.

I'd be very interested on anyone's pov after reviewing the following:

Theft by Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a#

http://buildfreedom.com/fiscal/

What about Ron Paul? He dominated a good majority of the presidential debates but was never covered by the main stream media. Did you know, he wanted to do away with the federal income tax?

Research Joe Bannister a former IRS special agent:
http://buildfreedom.com/fiscal/suprynowicz.html

You either choose to see whats going on or deny it. In the end the truth will always surface.

The most important thing about information is that it only serves a purpose when one understands its implications, but in order to utilize or recognize its significance one must be free of any preconceived notions and have an open mind.

[Famspear]

.......I'd be very interested on anyone's pov after reviewing the following:

Theft by Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a#

You're a little late. Theft by Deception is from Larken Rose, an ex-con who dared the government to prosecute him because he thought he had found a legal ticket to evading federal income tax -- the "861" scam.

He was wrong. He went to prison. He's out now, and he's relatively quiet, except for his recent internet post praising Joe Stack, the murderous wacko who crashed a plane into an IRS building in Austin.

I can't get the "buildfreedom" links to work, but Joe Banister is old, old, old news. The State of California revoked his CPA license. He was also barred from practicing before the IRS. Joe Banister (and it's "Banister," not "Bannister" -- but don't feel bad; even the IRS has misspelled his name) is someone who knows better or who should know better. People like Banister and former IRS employee Sherry Peel Jackson (she is now in federal prison) and Louisiana attorney Tommy Cryer illustrate the point that even people who are smart and who should know better do sometimes get involved in the tax protester scams.

What about Ron Paul? He dominated a good majority of the presidential debates but was never covered by the main stream media. Did you know, he wanted to do away with the federal income tax?

Wow, what a news flash! Who is this Ron Paul guy, anyway? Man, thanks, really, for that update on this guy and his views about federal income tax. We had no idea.....

You either choose to see whats going on or deny it. In the end the truth will always surface.

The most important thing about information is that it only serves a purpose when one understands its implications, but in order to utilize or recognize its significance one must be free of any preconceived notions and have an open mind.

Or, as a great philosopher (I think it might be Ed Sanders) would say..... "the mud elephant, wading through the sea, leaves no tracks."

[Nikki]

If you intent to comply with the law consider:

Pete is about to go to prison. He has been convicted of violating the income tax laws and will be going to prison for several years.

Most importantly to you, when he was on trial, he did not bring up any aspect of his CtC theories in his own defense.

If he, the master guru of CtC-educated filing, can't apply his own logic to his own defense, what will CtC avail you?

Your compatriots on the Lost Horizons forum, for some strange reason, seem to believe that there's some particularly-phrased letter or procedural step which will make all their problems go away. Unfortunately, they are all mistaken.

Every one of them will end up paying the taxes, interest, and penalties which have been assessed; having their assets siezed; having to go through personal bankruptcy; or in prison for tax evasion.

Despite your best efforts to talk your way out of your situation, you are going to have to pay what is due.

[The Operative]

Interesting to note that some of you clearly use the terminology so well; TP is taxpayer i'm assuming.

You assume wrong. A TP is short for tax protester. Another term used is TD for tax denier.

Federal income tax only applies to TPs. I'm in the process of abrogating all evidence that signifies that I am a TP.

Wrong again. The federal income tax applies to citizens and residents of the United States.
See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#taxpayer

Fyi, my diction was to emphasis my point, its the beauty of language.

Should not that be 'to emphasize'?

I'd be very interested on anyone's pov after reviewing the following:

Theft by Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a#

See http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/larken-rose and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section861

http://buildfreedom.com/fiscal/

Lots of false and erroneous information there. Only follow that information if you want additional frivolous filing penalties.

What about Ron Paul? He dominated a good majority of the presidential debates but was never covered by the main stream media. Did you know, he wanted to do away with the federal income tax?

He was covered just as much as any other presidential candidate that was expected to get 5% or less of the total vote. Yes, we know about Ron Paul's ideas. We also understand that Ron Paul doesn't understand many things about economics or the Constitution.

Research Joe Bannister a former IRS special agent:
http://buildfreedom.com/fiscal/suprynowicz.html

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/joseph-banister

You either choose to see whats going on or deny it. In the end the truth will always surface.

You took the words right out of my mouth. So, the question becomes, are you going to choose to see the truth or continue to deny it?

The most important thing about information is that it only serves a purpose when one understands its implications, but in order to utilize or recognize its significance one must be free of any preconceived notions and have an open mind.

Yes, but one must also be able to recognize when something defies common sense. Many tax protester theories defy common sense.

[LPC]

Thank you LPC for the info and useful response.

You're not trying to refute it, but not admitting any error, so that must mean you're about to go on to another crackpot theory. Which one will it be?

May I have the envelope please?

I'd be very interested on anyone's pov after reviewing the following:

Theft by Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a#

And the winner is the 861 argument that was first developed by Thurston Bell, but popularized by Larken Rose.

The most interesting pov on Larken Rose came from the 12 members of the jury that listened to him explain his theory and then found him guilty of five counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns, which earned him 13 months in federal prison.

http://buildfreedom.com/fiscal/

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

What about Ron Paul? He dominated a good majority of the presidential debates but was never covered by the main stream media. Did you know, he wanted to do away with the federal income tax?

What about Ron Paul?

Research Joe Bannister a former IRS special agent:
http://buildfreedom.com/fiscal/suprynowicz.html

Someone else has posted that Banister has been barred from practice before the IRS and his CPA license has been revoked. You should also know that the IRS has assessed a deficiency against Banister for the year 2002, and the Tax Court has affirmed the deficiency, along with a penalty for failing to file a timely return. Joseph R. Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-201, No. 1356-06 (8/27/2008).

One of Banister's clients, Walter Thompson, whom Banister advised not to file federal income tax returns, just finished serving his six years in prison.

You either choose to see whats going on or deny it. In the end the truth will always surface.

The most important thing about information is that it only serves a purpose when one understands its implications, but in order to utilize or recognize its significance one must be free of any preconceived notions and have an open mind.

That's weird, because we've been trying to tell you much the same thing.

The truth that always surfaces is that these are all crackpot theories that have always failed and always will, because they're based on wishful thinking and not any legal reality.

[Joey Smith]

Ron Paul and Joe Banister both pay their taxes.

[Thillum]

You're all proving my point.

The fact of the matter is not that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Ron Paul or anyone else is inherently wrong, but that in effect, the legal system is constructed as such that the authority was able to contrive a case against them that worked in favor of presenting conflicting evidence, nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.

Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture. We are in effect conditioned at a very young age to submit and conform for the fear of being ostracized and excluded. In fact, A great majority of this country is indoctrinated to breed ignorance. We are at war with ourselves. This post attests to this fact. Why are we not able to discuss such matters without making it a personal attack on the other human being? We've been ingrained by fear to believe that within the realm of the instinctual and survival aspect inherent in life that one force readily dominates, succeeds or must win over another.

Let me tell you, this paradigm is obsolete.

We have become so numbingly swindled that we inherently have lost touch with our own seat of power and have in place commandeered the idea of happiness being a feat only fulfilled by external means.

Understand that everyone's moral compass is completely off kilter. If this isn't true, than given what we know about the federal income tax and our constitution, what you all are purporting is that paying 15% or more of what you earn through hard work is completely just and constitutionally sound, right? In effect the only way that these laws could be ratified as constitutional is if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax. Thus bringing coherence to the proverbial "voluntary compliance" we hear again and again from the IRS.

You all are wolves, feeding off the minds of the weak and the ignorance of the masses, perpetuating fear for the sake of controlling a power structure that no longer serves collective humanity.

Good news is, surmounting contrast leads to an inevitable shift in evolutionary tracts. The cycles of nature mirror octaves of dissonance and consonance. This is very much the End Times. The Mayans measured frequencies and energy quotients; the end of their 20 calendar system, by far the most accurate calendar known to man, is symbolic of the inability to measure this leap in evolution we are undergoing. Nothing in the universe has heretofore seen what we are now undergoing and/or experiencing. Readily, everything oscillates and consists of the same source or construct, that we are able to scientifically 'prove' as photons. Namely Light. If you begin to study the characteristics of Light and the electromagnetic spectrum you might further understand where it is I am coming from.

Beyond mere politics, have you even begun to question why is it that our economy is failing? Notice that the economy represents our monetary system of value. Its collapse is symbolic of our misguided and misunderstood ideal values. 'Coincidentally,' the environment is 'failing' as well. This country has been bankrupt since 1933, legal tender is just paper, intrinsically no different than monopoly money. What you all present and bring to the table is nothing more than smoke and mirrors that reduce the purpose of what was brought into question to begin with.

Its about time you start reevaluating everything you know or thought you know.

You think I truly care about this $500 dollars? I didn't make enough money to be legally required to file a return, but I did anyway. My intrinsic truths guide my actions more intimately than meaningless material gains.

Wake up.

[Famspear]

The fact of the matter is not that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Ron Paul or anyone else is inherently wrong, but that in effect, the authority was able to contrive a case against them that worked in favor of presenting conflicting evidence, nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.

No, the fact of the matter is that with respect to Banister, Rose, and Hendrickson, these people are indeed inherently wrong about what the federal income tax law is. Understanding federal tax law is not a matter of approaching it from a political philosophy. The law is the same, regardless of how you feel about it.

Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture.

No, critical thinking is not reinforced in the tax protester subculture.

We are in effect conditioned at a very young age to submit and conform for the fear of being ostracized and excluded. In fact, A great majority of this country is indoctrinated to breed ignorance. We are at war with ourselves. This post attests to this fact. Why are we not able to discuss such matters without making it a personal attack on the other human being? We've been ingrained by fear to believe that within the realm of the instinctual and survival aspect inherent in life that one force readily dominates, succeeds or must win over another.

That doesn't change the point that the law is what the courts have ruled the law to be.

Let me tell you, this paradigm is obsolete.

We have become so numbingly swindled that we inherently have lost touch with our own seat of power and have in place commandeered the idea of happiness being a feat only fulfilled by external means.

The law is still what the courts rule the law to be.

Understand that everyone's moral compass is completely off kilter. If this isn't true, than given what we know about the federal income tax and our constitution, what you all are purporting is that paying 15% or more of what you earn through hard work is completely just and constitutionally sound, right?

No. We're saying it's constitutionally sound. We're not saying it's "just" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

In effect the only way that these laws could be ratified as constitutional is if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax. ......

(bolding added)

Wrong. Completely wrong. There is no rule of law that says that.

You all are wolves, feeding off the minds of the weak and the ignorance of the masses, perpetuating fear for the sake of controlling a power structure that no longer serves collective humanity.

No, we're not. We're here to expose tax scams.

Good news is, surmounting contrast leads to an inevitable shift in evolutionary tracts. The cycles of nature mirror octaves of dissonance and consonance.

Baloney.

This is very much the End Times. The Mayans measured frequencies and energy quotients; the end of their 20 calendar system, by far the most accurate calendar known to man, is symbolic of the inability to measure this leap in evolution we are undergoing. Nothing in the universe has heretofore seen what we are now undergoing and/or experiencing. Readily, everything oscillates and consists of the same source or construct, that we are able to scientifically 'prove' as photons. Namely Light. If you begin to study the characteristics of Light and the electromagnetic spectrum you might further understand where it is I am coming from.

"The mud elephant, wading through the sea, leaves no tracks."

Beyond mere politics, have you even begun to question why is it that our economy is failing?

Beyond mere politics, have you ever even begun to question why so many of you tax deniers cannot distinguish between explanation of what the law is and "support" for that law? (See your "wolf" rhetoric above.) Why is it that you people engage in personal attacks on people who explain the law to you? What is it in your mental makeup that makes you unable to reason clearly?

Notice that the economy represents our monetary system of value.

Notice that this has nothing to do with the validity of the tax law.

Its collapse is symbolic of our misguided and misunderstood ideal values. 'Coincidentally,' the environment is 'failing' as well. This country has been bankrupt since 1933, legal tender is just paper, intrinsically no different than monopoly money. What you all present and bring to the table is nothing more than smoke and mirrors that reduce the purpose of what was brought into question to begin with.

Yak, yak, yakety yak.

Its about time you start reevaluating everything you know or thought you know.

It's about time you start realizing that perhaps the rest of us are way ahead of you on this point. It's about time you recognize your own arrogance.

You think I truly care about this $500 dollars? I didn't make enough money to be legally required to file a return, but I did anyway. My intrinsic truths guide my actions more intimately than meaningless material gains.

What a load of manure.

Wake up.

No, you wake up.

[Prof]

And yet, T, the world hums along, with its false paper money, and gets along just fine using that as a medium and measure of exchange. And, the US enjoys, even in this recession, a level of individual prosperity and freedom from want that it is the envy of much of the world. Finally, think of the condition of the US in 1933 -- the Great Depression stalks the land -- and compare that to the current condition of the US and its population.

Like almost all tax protestors who show up here, or on the net, you found an idea an made it yours because it fits your needs, funky as they are. The idea is not true. It is a lie; its promoters are obviously charlatans or mentally and emotionally disturbed or both. You may object to taxation, but the simple fact is that the Congress passed an income tax law that is not unconsitutional and no court has ever agreed with any of those gurus you follow. PH is going to jail and is already liable for his unpaid taxes. Rose and Bell went to jail. Joe B is barred from his chosen profession. And, although all had the opportunity, none fled to some place where -- magically -- there are no taxes, because such places are truely horrible. See, e.g., Somalia.

Wake up, shake off the silly dreams of finding the secret key to success, and enjoy what this great country has to offer its citizens. Or, like Joe Stack's daughter, move to Western Europe where there is cradle to grave security -- oh, just remember, the income taxes on the residents of those countries is much higher than similar tax burdens in the US.

[Paul]

Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture.

Then how about telling us, in your own words, exactly what Larken Rose's theory was? Or admit that you haven't a clue.

And thanks for never even acknowledging my answer to your direct/indirect question. Is that because you didn't have a clue what the question really involved in the first place, or did you just realize that your "critical thinking" ability kinda lapsed for a minute when you thought there might be a point.

[The Operative]

The fact of the matter is not that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Ron Paul or anyone else is inherently wrong,

When it concerns income taxes, Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, and Pete Hendrickson are wrong. The real fact of the matter is that the law requires people to pay income taxes and file returns and allows the government to punish those who do not do those things when they are required to do so. A person can disagree with the need for an income tax. A person can complain that the government spends too much money. A person can even argue that the income tax does not meet the founders' intent. However, if a person argues that there is no law making anyone liable (Joe Bannister) or argues that the only taxable income is income from a foreign source (Larken Rose), or ignores the meaning of ordinary words in an attempt to justify their belief that the income tax laws do not say what they really say (Pete Hendrickson), those people are simply wrong. The courts have explained those arguments are wrong so many times that sanctions for making a frivolous argument are justified.

but that in effect, the authority was able to contrive a case against them that worked in favor of presenting conflicting evidence, nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.

Nonsense. Larken Rose and Pete Hendrickson broke the law. The jury clearly saw that and returned a verdict accordingly.

Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture.

So says the person who is not thinking critically.

We are in effect conditioned at a very young age to submit and conform for the fear of being ostracized and excluded.

Speak for yourself. The normal Quatloos posters argue amongst ourselves all the time. We debate various issues such as global warming, politics, what music we like, and whether David took his meds today. However, agreeing that the income tax laws are constitutional and valid is not conforming out of fear. We only agree on it because we understand the law.

In fact, A great majority of this country is indoctrinated to breed ignorance. We are at war with ourselves. This post attests to this fact. Why are we not able to discuss such matters without making it a personal attack on the other human being? We've been ingrained by fear to believe that within the realm of the instinctual and survival aspect inherent in life that one force readily dominates, succeeds or must win over another.

Nonsense.

Let me tell you, this paradigm is obsolete.

We have become so numbingly swindled that we inherently have lost touch with our own seat of power and have in place commandeered the idea of happiness being a feat only fulfilled by external means.

More nonsense.

Understand that everyone's moral compass is completely off kilter.

Still more nonsense compounded by the fact that you don't understand the different types of morality.

If this isn't true, than given what we know about the federal income tax and our constitution, what you all are purporting is that paying 15% or more of what you earn through hard work is completely just and constitutionally sound, right? In effect the only way that these laws could be ratified as constitutional is if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax. Thus bringing coherence to the proverbial "voluntary compliance" we hear again and again from the IRS.

Yes, the income tax laws conform to the requirements of the Constitution. Do I like paying more than 30% of my pay to the government? No. However, I don't refuse to pay simply because I don't like it. That would be breaking the law and make me a criminal. Instead, I talk to my elected representatives and senators and let them know that if they continue to spend like drunken sailors that they won't get my vote in the election.

I also pay my taxes because I know that it takes money to run the government. The federal income tax goes into the general fund and from there pays for the military, FAA, EPA, FDA, HUD, DOT, DOE, Education Department, FBI, CIA, NSA, NRC and many other government departments and agencies.

Your "privilege, an excise or indirect tax" statement is simply nonsense. No privilege has to be associated in order for the income tax to be constitutional. Whether the income tax is a direct or indirect tax is irrelevant after the 16th amendment. I'm not even going to comment on voluntary compliance because you wouldn't listen anyway.

You all are wolves, feeding off the minds of the weak and the ignorance of the masses, perpetuating fear for the sake of controlling a power structure that no longer serves collective humanity.

Wrong and more nonsense.

Good news is, surmounting contrast leads to an inevitable shift in evolutionary tracts. The cycles of nature mirror octaves of dissonance and consonance. This is very much the End Times. The Mayans measured frequencies and energy quotients; the end of their 20 calendar system, by far the most accurate calendar known to man, is symbolic of the inability to measure this leap in evolution we are undergoing. Nothing in the universe has heretofore seen what we are now undergoing and/or experiencing. Readily, everything oscillates and consists of the same source or construct, that we are able to scientifically 'prove' as photons. Namely Light. If you begin to study the characteristics of Light and the electromagnetic spectrum you might further understand where it is I am coming from.

Oh, Brother! Earth to Thillum, Earth to Thillum!

Beyond mere politics, have you even begun to question why is it that our economy is failing? Notice that the economy represents our monetary system of value. Its collapse is symbolic of our misguided and misunderstood ideal values. 'Coincidentally,' the environment is 'failing' as well. This country has been bankrupt since 1933, legal tender is just paper, intrinsically no different than monopoly money. What you all present and bring to the table is nothing more than smoke and mirrors that reduce the purpose of what was brought into question to begin with.

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

Its about time you start reevaluating everything you know or thought you know.

You think I truly care about this $500 dollars? I didn't make enough money to be legally required to file a return, but I did anyway. My intrinsic truths guide my actions more intimately than meaningless material gains.

Wake up.

Yes, you better wake up.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You're all proving my point.

The fact of the matter is not that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Ron Paul or anyone else is inherently wrong, but that in effect, the legal system is constructed as such that the authority was able to contrive a case against them that worked in favor of presenting conflicting evidence, nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.

Riiiiight. And I flew in on the back of a giant eagle today.

Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture.

It's certainly a lost art on Planet Thillum.

We are in effect conditioned at a very young age to submit and conform for the fear of being ostracized and excluded.

That's been going on since man drew a bison on the cave wall. Do try to keep up.

In fact, A great majority of this country is indoctrinated to breed ignorance. We are at war with ourselves. This post attests to this fact. Why are we not able to discuss such matters without making it a personal attack on the other human being? We've been ingrained by fear to believe that within the realm of the instinctual and survival aspect inherent in life that one force readily dominates, succeeds or must win over another.

Yes, your post does attest to the fact you've been bred ignorant.

Let me tell you, this paradigm is obsolete.

*snicker*

We have become so numbingly swindled that we inherently have lost touch with our own seat of power and have in place commandeered the idea of happiness being a feat only fulfilled by external means.

To borrow a moniker from Famspear: baloney. Not only baloney, but New Age baloney.

Understand that everyone's moral compass is completely off kilter.

And you speak for everyone, do you?

If this isn't true,

It isn't.

than given what we know about the federal income tax and our constitution, what you all are purporting is that paying 15% or more of what you earn through hard work is completely just and constitutionally sound, right? In effect the only way that these laws could be ratified as constitutional is if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax. Thus bringing coherence to the proverbial "voluntary compliance" we hear again and again from the IRS.

You all are wolves, feeding off the minds of the weak and the ignorance of the masses, perpetuating fear for the sake of controlling a power structure that no longer serves collective humanity.

I love it when tax deniers try to school me on the concept of income tax law when they themselves have been batting zero for decades now. Your problem, Thillum, is that you really think you're the first person to come here and say all this.

Good news is, surmounting contrast leads to an inevitable shift in evolutionary tracts. The cycles of nature mirror octaves of dissonance and consonance. This is very much the End Times. The Mayans measured frequencies and energy quotients; the end of their 20 calendar system, by far the most accurate calendar known to man, is symbolic of the inability to measure this leap in evolution we are undergoing. Nothing in the universe has heretofore seen what we are now undergoing and/or experiencing. Readily, everything oscillates and consists of the same source or construct, that we are able to scientifically 'prove' as photons. Namely Light. If you begin to study the characteristics of Light and the electromagnetic spectrum you might further understand where it is I am coming from.

Ah well...when you can't dazzle 'em with intelligence...

Beyond mere politics, have you even begun to question why is it that our economy is failing? Notice that the economy represents our monetary system of value. Its collapse is symbolic of our misguided and misunderstood ideal values. 'Coincidentally,' the environment is 'failing' as well. This country has been bankrupt since 1933, legal tender is just paper, intrinsically no different than monopoly money. What you all present and bring to the table is nothing more than smoke and mirrors that reduce the purpose of what was brought into question to begin with.

I was wondering when Chicken Little would rear his head and spout claptrap. Listen, buddy - if you don't like the way things roll in this country there's always Somalia.

Its about time you start reevaluating everything you know or thought you know.

That's the first time anyone's ever called me stupid.

You think I truly care about this $500 dollars?

Yes, you do.

I didn't make enough money to be legally required to file a return, but I did anyway. My intrinsic truths guide my actions more intimately than meaningless material gains.

Wake up.

That's what your guru's been saying for a while now. Too bad he's on his way to prison and you're about to get slapped with stiff penalties over a lousy $500 that any of us here could raise in a New York minute.

You definitely need to wake up.

[LaVidaRoja]

" I didn't make enough money to be legally required to file a return, but I did anyway. My intrinsic truths guide my actions more intimately than meaningless material gains."

Especially true if you qualified for the EITC

[notorial dissent]

The plain facts are that Joe Bannister is a hypocrite, on top of being a liar, and Dr Paul is an attention whore whose understanding of basic government and economics is right on par with my long dead siamese cat, and who will say anything to get a little bit of attention. He has spent his life, and certainly his Congressional career, bouncing from one looney toon position to another. Two really sterling examples they are. The only accomplishment Bannister can lay claim to is the ever increasing list of the gullible he talked into following his fantasies and who are now either in prison, on their way, or in so much trouble with their taxes and lives that they will most likely never recover. Paul, other than providing occasional loud snickers continues to prove that even Congress needs a village idiot, or at least has one, but beyond that, his entire term in Congress will have a net result of -0-.

You are right about one thing, critical thinking is not a big item in some parts of this culture, otherwise the yahoos like Bannister, Schultz, and Hansen and their ilk would have long been roundly laughed at and left at the side of the road where they belong. Your unhumble self being a prime example. In all of your rantings, you have yet to evidence even a scintilla of “critical thinking”. Instead you, under the pretense of “critical thinking” and intellect, glom on to the first theory(read fantasy) that suits your purposes without doing any evaluation or review at all. But then again, if you could or were capable of thinking for yourself you wouldn’t be slavishly salivating at and falling all over every word and pronouncement of the great Blowhard. All of which curiously have proven consistently and continually WRONG!!!!

In truth, the only ones being swindled are Pete’s, or any guru’s, followers, for he has nothing of value to sell, and yet you keep going back to the trough buying more and more of it.

I really love the “moral compass off kilter” bit coming from someone who is an advocate of a tax scam and the follower of a CONVICTED tax scammer. “Moral compass off kilter” is a very apt description of you and the rest of Pete’s suckers.

No one is “purporting” anything. “Just” is a subject for philosophers and TP’s with nothing else better to fill their empty hours. Constitutional - yes - there was this little thing called the 16th Amendment that says it is. An income tax would have been legal regardless, ONLY just effective on certain types of income, and even that is open to debate, one I wouldn’t want to try in this day and age. The thing that Pete, and the rest of his ilk try to forget is that an/the Income Tax has never been ruled unconstituional, just the application of it in very certain instances, so with or without the 16th Amendment, a tax on income would still be “constitutional”. The rest of your, and I use the term very loosely, analysis is pure self serving nonsense and delusion. If you did a little of that “critical thinking” that you keep blathering about, you would see that there is NOTHING in the amendment, and certainly not in any of the supporting legislation, that puts ANY kind of limitation on what is income or where it comes from.

I like that you say “if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax” which so handily points out that you haven’t been paying attention. The Income Tax is just that, a tax on income, “from whatever source derived”, without apportionment, again curiously, no mention or reference of a “privilege” or anything else for that matter, just “from whatever source derived”. I realize plain simple English must be terribly confusing to you after falling hook, line, and sinker for Pete’s contorted logic and unconscionable linguistic torture and abuse of all those poor innocent little words that mean what they say, but then we are back again to that critical thinking thing you don’t do. Then there is the part about reading and taking things in context, and not just blind items to justify something that means the opposite of what the term refers to. Again your “critical thinking” deficiency problem rears its head.

You all are wolves, feeding off the minds of the weak and the ignorance of the masses, perpetuating fear for the sake of controlling a power structure that no longer serves collective humanity.

Nice bit of rhetoric, excuse me rant, but that is all it is. No one here is selling anything, unlike a certain TP guru who is now waiting his upcoming jailtime, and of whom this is a much better and far more accurate description.

Good going on the last two paragraphs, they come close to equaling if not surpassing some of the verbal gibberish that SFB.... comes up with on a regular basis, and is every bit as useless as his jibbering.

And then you wander off in to the other layers delusional mythology which shows even less of your “critical thinking”. You don’t want to think, you just want to parrot what someone else has claimed to justify your uselessness.

Since your brought it up, we will finish with this.

Critical thinking requires that you look at the whole proposition from beginning to end. You have not done this. You have taken Pete’s swill and made it your own without examining even a bit of it. That is the exact opposite and antithesis of “critical thinking”, and is what you accuse everyone else of. Had you made even a cursory attempt you would have seen that nothing Pete claims has any basis in fact or reality.

Had you been using “critical thinking”, you would come to realize that every one of Pete’s theories fail, and fail for the simple reason that they DO NOT work. The verification of any theory or experiment is to try it out and get the same results each time. Which happens here except in the negative, the theory/experiment fails each and ever time because it is fundamentally, absolutely, and irredeemably flawed. Pete and his followers fail for the simple reason that they are wrong from faulty premise start to inevitably sad finish, nothing more, nothing less. Pete, and you for that matter, are free to believe any fool thing you want to, but just because you really really really want to believe that up is down isn’t going to change the fact that you are just plain, and simply, wrong. You don’t like the reality that you are wrong, but Pete, and his theories, have been tried and tested repeatedly in the harsh light of reality, and the even harsher forum of the courtroom, and has been found wanting both in fact and reality at each and every turn.

Using “critical thinking” the only result can be that Pete is wrong(convicted - going to jail is about as wrong as it gets), that it doesn’t work the way he says it does(100% failure rate might be a subtile hint), and that it is a fraud(it doesn’t work, he’s doing this for money you putz), but then, you are not, and never have been, thinking, period. You are just another pathetic nonentity following your master’s dictum, bleating plaintively that you are your own man, all the while the rest of the universe is sniggering at you.

[Nikki]

Farmer is indulging in extreme mental masturbation. He is spewing out verbiage in the hope that something hw says will save him from having all of his assets seized.

Farmer is a classical example of the Sooeyish denier. He has determined that he can coast along in life without any responsibility to his commnity or his peers, but is entitled to all the benefits of an American citizen.

Farmer -- stuff it up your fundament. I have more respect for an illegal immigrant who comes here, works hard, and pays his fair share than I do for you.

You want to take without contributing.

You are a parasite and a leech.

[Thillum]

This is a closed circle. We are going nowhere.

Your right, I know absolutely nothing. What I in effect presume to know is careful weighed upon, the syntax, context and egregore of the masses set in place before me. I identify with a form in order to understand my current construct of reality.

Law is a binding system constructed of limited legal terms that are inclusive in their definition and altogether different than common place diction.

Again, would it be constitutional for income tax to be a direct tax? Why not? Could it be because it would contradict the very nature of the constitutions inception?

You all are missing the point if you attack an argument for the sake of being right rather than understanding the principle being argued. For this very reason our legal system is corrupt; we no longer argue for virtue, instead we settle for treason.

Paul wrote:

Thillum wrote:
Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture.

Then how about telling us, in your own words, exactly what Larken Rose's theory was? Or admit that you haven't a clue.

And thanks for never even acknowledging my answer to your direct/indirect question. Is that because you didn't have a clue what the question really involved in the first place, or did you just realize that your "critical thinking" ability kinda lapsed for a minute when you thought there might be a point.

How does arbitrary information equate to critical thinking? Critical thinking involves understanding how the pieces come together and for what greater purpose.

But i'll humor you:
From my limited understanding, Larken whose's position originated with Thurston Bell, involves actually researching Title 26. With his research he was able to trace the limited defining meaning of gross income in order to understand the context or erroneous assumption we subject ourselves to by mistakenly identifying legal terminology with common place definition, responding to self incriminating questions in regards to taxable liability and/or actively utilizing the various binding legal forms (aka contracts) already set in place.

As for second comment, I thought you might of been able to deduce where I was headed with that indirect/direct question. How bout you ponder why income tax could not be a direct tax as I keep reiterating.

I mean, Seriously! There is a reason why we differentiate between direct and indirect taxation. Obviously it depends on POV and context, but from the perspective of the individual can you begin to see why income tax is indirect and therefore does not violate the constitution? Yet its somewhat lofty although safe to say that we all seem be to under the illusion that paying income tax equates to being a good citizen... but if everyone has to pay income tax why the heck isn't it also considered a direct tax, which are equally apportioned among the states? This comes back to voluntary compliance... its like a contract. You volunteer to bind yourself to the limited and defining scope written or readily, not written on the contract but altogether inferred to with the narrowly defined legal terminology included within the document. Therefore by being indirect it does not violate or interfere with the scope of the constitution and our inalienable rights in the pursuit of happiness liberty and property.

Its funny how you all skirt around this issue.

LPC corrected me on my error, which for some reason was what I thought you said and I therefore altogether ignored you. Forgive me.

LPC wrote:

Thillum wrote: Understand, that if FEDERAL INCOME TAX was a direct tax, this inherently would imply that the freedom to pursuit life, liberty and property is a farce, because in effect what you make is to a lesser degree in servitude, aka slavery.

That (and the stuff that follows it) is simply your opinion.

Therein is the legal entity known as you written in all capital letters; ROBERT SOUZA is not Robert Souza.

Nonsense. You (and others) just make this kind of stuff up, because there is no statute or court decision to support your statement. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Readily everything is a matter of opinion depending on the POV--facts are relevant truths of the time. But lets not argue semantics. Using Logic and Critical Thinking, I'm hoping you might understand how implicitly important it is that income tax be an indirect tax as I stated prior in this post.

Secondly, your purported evidence as it pertains to legal entities or more accurately defined as 'legal fiction' is limited in scope as it solely pertains within a given context and does not address the heart of the issue because it fails to illuminate the mechanics or logistics at play.

Go here and if you can't bother, scroll down to page 7:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6967949/The-L ... s-license-

The Operative wrote:

Thillum wrote:Federal income tax only applies to TPs. I'm in the process of abrogating all evidence that signifies that I am a TP.

Wrong again. The federal income tax applies to citizens and residents of the United States.

Why is everything so black and white with you all. I would of hoped you understood the due process of law and court procedures, which I might admit I have marginal understanding.

Whats important to understand is that 'citizen(s)' is a legal term. I can't say for certain residents is, but 'United States' is a legal term as well, which means that if you were to follow the nefarious web, taxpayer, citizen, and united states are all intertwined with limited statutory meaning used in binding contracts such as a W-4.

Famspear wrote:

"Thillum wrote:The fact of the matter is not that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Ron Paul or anyone else is inherently wrong, but that in effect, the authority was able to contrive a case against them that worked in favor of presenting conflicting evidence, nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.

No, the fact of the matter is that with respect to Banister, Rose, and Hendrickson, these people are indeed inherently wrong about what the federal income tax law is. Understanding federal tax law is not a matter of approaching it from a political philosophy. The law is the same, regardless of how you feel about it.

You in effect didn't refute my point but altogether ignored it and substantiated your claim by using arbitrary statements with little to no relevance.

Within a court room, the etiquette of law is bound to evidence. How do you refute evidence? With conflicting evidence that on its face denies the validity of the preceding position. You all are far more well informed of the law in understanding the mechanics to building a case and how, readily, the case is not about what is true in so much that it is in PROVING how the defendants position is WRONG, or providing evidence PROVING that your position is valid. Lets not argue semantics.

Famspear wrote:
That doesn't change the point that the law is what the courts have ruled the law to be.

The law is still what the courts rule the law to be

Somewhat inaccurate, "the law is not what the courts have ruled the law to be", in so much that the court rulings apply the law for a given court case in order to distinguish its judicial scope as it pertains to the given circumstance. In other words, court rulings can more clearly distinguish the ambiguous extent of the law.

Thillum wrote: In effect the only way that these laws could be ratified as constitutional is if federal income tax is by privilege, an excise or indirect tax. ......

Wrong. Completely wrong. There is no rule of law that says that.

For an obvious reason, it is implied by the constitution. How do you think we determined the validity of all these statutes?

Once and for all, Federal Income Tax is completely constitutional, there is no doubt in my mind. The point of emphasis is that the federal income tax is constitutional because it is an excise tax and not an direct tax; if income tax were a direct tax, it would violate the constitution.

I'm not a Tax Denier, nor a Tax Protester either. I think this comment might go beyond all of your heads. I'm not denying or protesting income tax. Again, federal income is completely constitutional. I'm educating myself as it pertains to the law and extracting myself from the limited legal binding system explicitly defined in the statutes and regulations.

My reasoning is sound, the problem is not that either of us are wrong but that some of us do not understand the greater scope of what is implied or, for very obvious reasons, not implied at all. Your not breaking any laws if you understand the law and know how to work around them. Wake up, how do you think corporate entities operate for the sake of maximizing profits? They scrutinize the law so that they can manipulate and work outside of its jurisdiction.

The Operator wrote:
However, if a person argues that there is no law making anyone liable (Joe Bannister) or argues that the only taxable income is income from a foreign source (Larken Rose), or ignores the meaning of ordinary words in an attempt to justify their belief that the income tax laws do not say what they really say (Pete Hendrickson), those people are simply wrong.

First of all, have you heard, upon multiple accounts, of the IRS denying to answer questions? If you like, I can even furnish video footage for you to consider... Now, why do you think this is? But not to get off topic. Lets continue, Have you even reviewed these three cases?

If you did even the slightest bit of research you would put more weight in your words. Court rulings or citations do not support any concrete evidence and are a 'moot' point until you review the case. Information is useless until it is utilized accordingly...

Suffice is to say Joe Bannister won the case against the IRS on June 23, 2005; Thompson on the other hand didn't fair as well.. Conveniently there is limited evidence, but this will have to do:
http://joebanister.blogspot.com/2005_06 ... 0829911128

In regards to Larken Rose, I extracted the following:

"Courts have consistently held that IRC Section 861 does not excuse U.S. citizens from filing tax returns and reporting income they earn in the U.S. At trial, Judge Baylson instructed the jury that Rose’s Section 861 argument was incorrect as a matter of law. In convicting Rose, the jury rejected Rose’s claim that he held a good faith belief that he was not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income tax."
Review the full article here: http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv05626.htm

Notice that Section 861 does not pertain to filing federal income tax returns. It pertains to defining 'source' as it is utilized in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 1, Section 61(a), "gross income means all income from whatever source derived."
In effect what this means is that this court ruling did not prosecute on the basis that his position in regards to 861 was incorrect, but that he failed to file.
If you review the DOJ article it clearly states that "Larken Rose of Hollywood, Pennsylvania was sentenced in federal district court to 15 months imprisonment for failing to file tax returns for the years 1998 -2002." In effect the evidence boiled down to failing to file tax returns. Is there any other evidence that refutes section 861? How bout looking up the code for yourself instead of using third party evidence?

And Finally, in regards to Pete Hendrickson, the IRS's case is the following:
Mr. Hendrickson received a Form W-2 that provided a [presumptive] basis that he earned wages. Mr. Hendrickson, instead, chose to ignore the evidence from his employer and declare that he earned zero wages.
Supporting evidence that he earned zero wages can be found in his very own LostHorizons forum here: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... ght=stocks
To summarize, furnish a "Certificate of Fact" and any presumption that the employer was a federal entity comes falling down, because the filing of an SS-4 does not substantiate the claim.