Losthead Thillum Unhappium - Robert Souza

[LPC]

You're all proving my point.

Your point was that you don't know what you're talking about?

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

I don't believe that anyone is "inherently wrong," just like I don't believe that anyone is inherently evil.

Banister, Rose, and Hendrickson were wrong about the application of the tax laws to them. Ron Paul has some opinions about the tax system that I disagree with and believe would be bad policy, but I'm not sure that they're "wrong" in a legal or moral sense.

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,

You make "conflicting evidence" sound like a bad thing, but that's what trials are all about.

And what is the alternative? Should the defense be barred from presenting evidence that conflicts with the evidence presented by the prosecution?

You obviously didn't think this through.

nullifying their testimony and position thus thereby enchanting the Jury to their side.

Hendrickson lost his civil case before it ever got to a jury, Banister *won* his jury trial (I can't remember whether or not he testified) but lost his case in Tax Court (which has no juries), and (as far as I know) Ron Paul has never been involved in any tax-related trial, jury or otherwise.

And no one's testimony was "nullified." For example, Larken Rose got to testify, and got to argue his case to the jury, but the jury simply didn't believe his testimony because it conflicted with the emails he had written and other evidence that the government presented.

Finally, the idea that the prosecution can cast spells and "enchant" the jury is one I've not heard before. We've read claims of corruption and intimidation and ignorance and brain-washing, but witchcraft is new to this forum.

Critical thinking is not reinforced in this culture.

Which culture is "this culture"? Are you talking about Quatloos, the legal system, or all of American society?

Despite the oodles of fun I can have ridiculing your crap, I'm going to stop here in order to highlight the irony of someone as sloppy as you are with your language and your facts having the gall to criticize someone else for lack of "critical thinking."

You have yet to post anything to this forum that demonstrates any rational thought. You have instead presented nothing but rationalizations, which are the opposition of rational thought because you start with your attitudes (I'm not going to dignify them with the word "conclusions") and then thrash around looking for some fact or logic to justify them.

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.

You filed a frivolous return you weren't even required to file?

No wonder gottago thinks we're making up people like you.

[LPC]

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

The important part is the last six words, but I also have to point out that:

1. Of course law is a "binding system." If it wasn't binding, it wouldn't be "law," now would it? If it wasn't binding, it would be "guides" or "recommendations" or something optional or aspirational.

2. The word "limited" is a conclusion, not a description. You're trying to set up the idea that the words used in statutes and regulations are part of a language that is different from the English language used in the rest of society.

3. The meaning of the word "inclusive" in this sentence is not clear, but seems to suggest (once again) that the definitions of legal words are part of a semantic system that is separate from the rest of our language.

Getting back to the last six words: Your claim that the legal system uses words with definitions that are "altogether different than common place diction" is completely wrong. The general rule is that the words used in statutes (including tax statutes) retain their ordinary, every-day meanings unless the context requires a different meaning.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

“The legislature must be presumed to use words in their known and ordinary signification.” Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 248 U.S. 552, 560 (1932), quoting Levy’s Lessee v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 47, 49 (1832).

“[T]he words of statutes--including revenue acts--should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday senses.” Crane v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 331 U.S. 1, 6 (1947); Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 571 (1966).

“In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the ‘ordinary, everyday senses’ of the words.” Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1993).

“Common understanding and experience are the touchstones for the interpretation of the revenue laws.” Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 118 (1940).

You all are missing the point if you attack an argument for the sake of being right rather than understanding the principle being argued.

You don't really understand "critical thinking," do you?

You have to understand a principle before you can critique it. I am critical of what you say because (and to the extent that) I understand what you say, and I am able to refute what you say (as I did above) because I have understood what you say.

[Imalawman]

Thillium highlights the mindset of the tax protestor:

1. Without engaging in years of specialized study, one can gain mastery over a profession to a greater degree than the professional. - See supra, Thillium spouting off about "legal terms". He probably also believes that Cancer is being perpetuated because of the medical profession's need for money from Cancer treatments. He probably also undergoes "Ozone" treatments.

2. If most people are doing something, it is part of a conspiracy.

3. If anyone disagrees, they are brainwashed; otherwise, their piercing logic would win the day.

4. They can't make money. This is not their fault, they are victims of an oppressive society that keeps true, free thinking patriots down. Otherwise, they're probably 17rs old and haven't hit college yet.

5. It isn't merely about the money, its a noble cause that is founded in biblical Christianity or new age soup du jour.

Thillium hits all five with remarkable precision.

[The Operative]

This is a closed circle. We are going nowhere.

Yes, we are watching you running around in circles trying to justify why you think you don't have to pay taxes.

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.

And that is part of the problem, you are trying to teach yourself about law without listening to those people who know law. I know a little about medicine, but if my daughter needs her appendix removed, I am going to take her to a doctor. I am not going to attempt to read a book to teach myself how to remove an appendix. I am also not going to stand in the operating room and attempt to tell the surgeon the proper way to remove the appendix. That would be stupid.

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

I believe that I know what you are attempting to say there and you are wrong. When a term is defined within a statute, it is not limited to the items or class of items listed within the definition unless is specifically says so. Take a look at the following definition:

The term 'state' includes the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States.

That sentence means that the District of Columbia is considered a state. It also means that Florida is a state. Florida is not excluded from the definition simply because it is not included.
However, if the definition was worded:

The term 'state' includes only the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States.

Now, that sentence would exclude Florida from being in the definition of state.

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?

Ignoring court decisions prior to the passage of the 16th amendment, if the income tax was considered to be a direct tax prior to the passage of the 16th amendment, then no, it would not be constitutional unless it was apportioned. The current income tax is not apportioned. However, the current income tax is constitutional for more than one reason. First, the 16th amendment eliminates the apportionment requirement for any income tax. Second, court decisions prior to the passage of the 16th amendment specifically stated that an income tax levied on a person's wages was constitutional.

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.

That is your problem, we are not attacking your argument because there is nothing to argue. The legislature enacts a law, the executive branch enforces a law. The judicial branch settles arguments about what the law says. If two parties have a disagreement about how a law is interpreted or enforced, the courts determine the proper interpretation. In other words, it is just like Famspear said, the law says what the courts say it does. If the legislature disagrees with the court’s interpretation, the legislature rewrites the law.

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.

Larken Rose is an idiot. Like most TPs who “research” tax law, he starts with a conclusion and attempts to find some way to justify it. The Tax Protester FAQ explains what is wrong with his 861 argument. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section861
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/larken-rose

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.

And we keep telling you that it is irrelevant whether the current income tax is considered a direct tax or an indirect tax. The 16th amendment removes the apportionment requirement for the income tax. In the Constitution, the only restriction on direct taxes are they must be apportioned among the states. So, if income taxes are considered direct taxes, the 16th amendment states that income taxes do not have to be apportioned. If income taxes are considered indirect, the only requirement is that they be geographically uniform. The current income taxes are geographically uniform. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether the income tax is considered a direct tax or an indirect tax. Either way, the current income tax laws are constitutional.

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?

Nonsense.

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.

More nonsense. Voluntary compliance is not like a contract. You either obey the law or you do not. Larken Rose and Pete Hendrickson and other tax protesters do not obey the law.

Its funny how you all skirt around this issue.

In order to skirt around an issue, you actually have to present a valid argument.

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

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-

Nonsense. This just shows the fallacy of your position. You accept the word of people with little or no formal education in law over the word of lawyers and CPAs. That is equivalent to asking a first-grader how a nuclear reactor works instead of asking a nuclear engineer.

Federal income tax only applies to TPs [tax payers]. 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.

Nonsense. If you were born within the boundaries of one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia, then you are a citizen. Even if you were born overseas and one of your parents was born within one of the fifty states, then you are citizen. If you are not a citizen, but are here on a visa, and you live for an extended length of time within the boundaries of one of the 50 states, then you are a resident and except for some very few exceptions, the income tax laws apply to you and you are required to pay taxes if you earn more than the amount of the standard deduction.

I will finish replying to the rest of your nonsense later.

[LPC]

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-

Here's an exercise for you in Critical Thinking: Read the entire "memorandum" that Chris Hansen wrote (a better copy can be found here) and identify exactly what authority (court opinion, regulation, statute, executive order, tradition, or custom) supports his conclusion that a name written all in capital letters is a "legal fiction" that is separate and distinct from a human being with the same name in lower case letters.

Or is what Hansen wrote true simply because Hansen wrote it? Do you accept what he says is true whether examining the logic of what he says is true?

If you can't identify any authority that supports what Hansen wrote, then explain the logic of what he wrote, clearly identifying the factual foundation of his conclusions.

Hint: Hansen quotes from style manuals to conclude that using all capital letters is bad writing style, but how does he get from the conclusion that writing a name in all capitals is bad style to the conclusion that a name in all capitals is a "person" that is a legal fiction?

I've already posted several court opinions that REJECT your claim. Now provide ONE authority that supports your claim. (And no, Chris Hansen is not an "authority".)

[Famspear]

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?

Yawwnnn.......

The question of whether a particular income tax is ''direct or indirect'' is legally irrelevant to the question of whether the Congress has the power, under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, to impose that tax. Congress has the power to impose any income tax, regardless of whether that tax is deemed direct or indirect.

The question of whether a particular income tax is direct or indirect is also legally irrelevant to the issue of whether that tax must be apportioned. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no income tax of any kind whatsoever, whether considered direct or indirect, is required to be apportioned.

From the United States Tax Court:

Thus, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax.

---from Sortillon v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. (CCH) 1097, T.C. Memo 1979-281, CCH Dec. 36,194(M), Docket No. 2108-79 (July 26, 1979).

More:

Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

---from Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, CCH Dec. 41,031 (1984).

Under the Constitution as amended to date, the only important legal relevancy to the question of whether a particular income tax is Constitutionally valid (aside from rules such as the one prohibiting taxes on exports, or rules that revenue measures must originate in the House, etc.) is probably whether that income tax is imposed with what the law refers to as geographical uniformity. That is, an income tax probably could not be imposed on, say, just the incomes of people who happen to reside in New York and Montana.

[jg]

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.

If you indeed would like to educate yourself as it pertains to the law then you must rely on legal authority to determine what the courts have ruled the law says and not on Hendrickson or Rose, or anyone that makes claims that are directly contrary to what has been decided as to how the law is to be applied and what it means.
Unless or until those contrary views are able to win in court, acting contrary to the law as it has been decided and applied is punishable by that decided law. That is precisely what has happened to Hendrickson and Rose, et al when their theories were tried, and lost, in court.

For example, consider the following from COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) :

This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." <cites omitted> Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as "windfalls" flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. <cites omitted> Thus, the fortuitous gain accruing to a lessor by reason of the forfeiture of a lessee's improvements on the rented property was taxed in Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 . <cites omitted> Such decisions demonstrate that we cannot but ascribe content to the catchall provision of 22 (a), "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever." The importance of that phrase has been too frequently recognized since its first appearance in the Revenue Act of 1913 to say now that it adds nothing to the meaning of "gross income."
Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions. <cites omitted>
Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income to the recipients. Respondents concede, as they must, that the recoveries are taxable to the extent that they compensate for damages actually incurred. It would be an anomaly that could not be justified in the absence of clear congressional intent to say that a recovery for actual damages is taxable but not the additional amount extracted as punishment for the same conduct which caused the injury. And we find no such evidence of intent to exempt these payments

For the complete case including cites, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&page=426

Many, like Hendrickson and Rose, have imagined limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, or restrictive labels as to their nature, for which there is no legal basis. Having no legal basis is precisely what the court means when an argument is deemed to be frivolous.

I sincerely hope this helps; if you truly want to educate yourself pertaining to the law.

[Joey Smith]

The website at http://www.hereisthelaw.com explains why it doesn't make any difference whether the income tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax.

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

Thillium, have you ever considered the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Steward Machine Company v. Davis? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=548

In that case, the Supreme Court held as follows: "[The taxpayer argues] that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. 6 An excise is not limited to vocations or activities [301 U.S. 548, 581] that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."

[LPC]

Darn, forgot to note the other reason for all caps. Waaay back in the day, the only printers were dot matrix printers, usually 9-dot ones. And with a 9-dot matrix printer, all caps was far, far, far easier to read than trying to mix caps and small case.

I have never seen a court document generated with a dot matrix printer, and my experience with legal technology leads me to think that dot matrix printers were probably obsolete before any court clerk bought a word processing system.

But I think you're close. If you're typing a document and want to emphasize a name so that it's immediately visible (which you want to do on complaints, summonses, warrants, and other forms of legal process), the easiest way to do it is by putting the name in all capital letters. There is no bold or italic on a typewriter, and underlining takes extra time because you have to backspace and then overstrike with the underline character. Much easier to hit the caps lock at the beginning of the name and release the caps lock at the end.

[Lambkin]

In my experience, back in the day, accountancy and legal printing on forms often used "daisy wheel" or "golf ball" style impact printers.

[notorial dissent]

Just as an additional aside, in the early days of computer printing, the old IBM hammer printers could not do anything but print in upper caps. The asci capability was always there for the lower case, but no way to utilize it. All computer code at the time was done in caps since that was all the machines of the day could cope with and with what was available at the time, far easier to read, and since using the lowercase entailed more memory usage for storage they weren’t generally used. It really wasn’t until the advent of, as was pointed out by CK, dot matrix that there was some flexibility in what could be printed, but most software was still stuck in caps mode. This explains the reason for computer printed documents, first limitation, and then later laziness about updating code, and finally its tradition now.

The second point, is that it has been a tradition in the legal community to caption in Caps for as far back as I have been able to find legal documents. It quite simply made it easier to recognize the parties and sort out the parts of the document if the names were all in caps and generally bigger than the surrounding material.

So far from being a secret conspiracy to convert someone into another entity, it just a very very old tradition, but the TP sovereignidiot theory sounds good on paper when they don’t have anything else to go on.

edited to remove duplicatation

[The Operative]

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.

Wrong. You said that Joe Bannister, Larken Rose, and Pete Hendrickson are not inherently wrong. Famspear stated that those people are in fact wrong. The reason Famspear knows they are wrong is because he knows tax law and the courts have said they were wrong. If court after court says that a particular position about the law is wrong, then it is wrong.

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.

That is part of your problem, you are confusing evidence or a person's position with law. In a tax case, a defendant can testify and provide evidence showing what he BELIEVED the law to be. However, he does not get to say what the law IS. Neither does the prosecution. The court makes the determination of what the law says.

Also, a person can CLAIM that they did not receive income. However, if the prosecution presents a W-2 showing that the person received income and then can show verified bank statements or other financial statements of the individual showing amounts close to the amount on the W-2, then it is obvious the person received the amount shown on the W-2 regardless of what the person claims.

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.

Already explained and the law is what the courts have ruled the law to be.

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?

Because the courts have ruled that the statutes are constitutional.

Once and for all, Federal Income Tax is completely constitutional, there is no doubt in my mind.

Good, probably one of the first correct things you have said.

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.

Don't get hung up on excise, direct taxes, indirect taxes, etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER. The income tax is constitutional whether it is considered a direct tax or not. BTW, you are probably confused about what an excise tax is.

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.

I hope that you are not a tax protester. However, if you are following Pete Hendrickson, then you are a tax protester.

If you want to educate yourself about income taxes, why don't you listen to tax lawyers and CPAs? Instead, you reference an ex-CPA who claims there is no law, a gardener turned medical transcriptionist who claims only foreign source income is taxable, and a two-time loser when it comes to income taxes. Like I mentioned earlier, you prefer to ask a first-grader how a nuclear reactor works instead of asking a nuclear engineer.

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.

I doubt your reasoning is sound. Though, for the most part, what you said in the above paragraph is correct. The problem arises when a person who is untrained in tax law attempts to take advantage of a loophole that doesn't exist. Also, corporations do not work outside of the jurisdiction of the law. To the contrary, they work within the law to find the legal methods to reduce their income tax burden. Individuals can do some of that too. However, Pete Hendrickson is breaking the law. There is a difference.

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?

The IRS answers questions all the time. However, when a person is ambushed at a podium or other event where they do not have direct access to the law, it is difficult to answer some questions. Also, some of those "questions" are so asinine that they do not deserve an answer. Of course an IRS bureaucrat isn't going to answer some moron in the audience shouting, "Show us the law!" First, the law is available for those willing to look. Second, the moron wouldn't accept the answer anyway, so there is no point in answering.

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

I know how to research just fine. I could cite case after case and you would probably still deny whatever I told you. However, you will accept the words of others, seemingly without question.

You need to go back and read all of my posts. I never said that Joe Bannister lost his criminal case. However, an acquittal doesn't mean that he was right. It only means that he was able to convince the jury that he was too stupid to understand that he had to pay taxes.

Vernice Kuglin was acquitted in her criminal case too. However, you should read the end of the transcripts. Here is the pertinent part...

19 MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin
20 on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court
21 ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got
22 to file returns and --

23 MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be
24 cleaned up totally.

25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not
1 incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also
2 saying is there will still be civil penalties.

3 MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters
4 to be coming pretty quick.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil
7 proceedings, and she is going to being take
8 responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to
9 respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.

Right there you can see that even though she was acquitted that she still had to pay her taxes and her acquittal changed nothing.

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?

Yes, Larken Rose was charged with "Willful failure to file". I never said he wasn't. However, what was HIS REASON for not filing tax returns? I'll give you a clue, he said he didn't have to since his income wasn't from a foreign source, which is also known as the '861' argument. Notice that the Judge instructed the jury that Rose's argument was "incorrect as a matter of law." That is part of the Judge's job. Usually, neither the prosecution or defense can tell the jury what the law is. That is for the Judge to do. Note: I am not a lawyer and if I am incorrect on that part, one of the many lawyers here will correct me.

I have looked at the code. Anyone with adequate reading comprehension skills can see that Larken Rose is wrong.

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.

I covered this a few paragraphs back. A person can CLAIM all they want that they did not receive income. However, a W-2 and further evidence that the money was deposited in that person's account is all the evidence required to refute the person's claim. What it amounts to is that Pete Hendrickson lied when he filed his income taxes, he lied on the stand, and he is trying to convince all of his followers to lie too.

[Thillum]

Well said. Will review.

And Good insight. Thank you.
Your right. I'm not rational in my approach. The rational mind is limited. Sometimes we play with fire just to test the waters.

Like a moth to a flame, I'm out.

[Thillum]

I have yet to review all that was said. Thanks again for the in depth and detailed response.

Sometimes, you have to play with fire to learn one's own limitations or presumption of limitation... you can call me cocky, patronizing or what have you. I do not covet my strengths or weaknesses, I am that I am. I can't say I have much of an ego to protect and from what I read, I did find some of the comments humorous. Thanks for the laughs.

Now, if you would humor my presence but a bit more. I seem to have uncovered something very interesting, in great part due to the synergy or questions that arose in my mind from this post and elsewhere. I found this very intriguing article answering some very fundamental questions about the IRS, certified by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of California, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, Author and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library.


Did you know? "After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union."

And another very crucial point from "31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service":

21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?

There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term “income” is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth. “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”

More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.

Go here for the full article: http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm


"Did you know that the Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation incorporated in the State of Nevada on October 10, 1994?"

I have not verified the above statement, but according to Eddie Kahn's testimony he requested a Certificate of Fact from the Secretary of the State of Nevada certifying the existence of the Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service as a corporation with status in good standing.

All relevant info found here: http://members.fortunecity.com/midmopub/notgov.html

I guess the cat's out of the bag huh?...

Thanks for playing your part. Couldn't have done this without your help ; )

-Thillum

________ ___ __ _
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V

[Duke2Earl]

If you are going to believe Paul Andrew Mitchell and Eddie Kahn, then you are truly lost. Private Attorney General... tell you what... I'm the Private King of the World... I outrank him. Eddie Kahn... convicted scammer... very few people get to be classified as proven liars. Do you truly believe any crap that anyone posts, no matter the source?

[Pottapaug1938]

The "Private Attorney General" bit comes from the concept that if I, as an attorney, bring suit and win a case which benefits a lot of people in our society, has a beneficial impact on society, and requires private assistance in upholding that benefit, I am entitled to recover attorneys' fees, beyond what i would normally receive, from the state in recognition that my work benefited many more people beyond my client(s). However, the doctrine does not exist in evey jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this buffoon obviously decided that he is acting as a PAG by pushing his baloney, and has claimed the title so as to confuse his gullible would-be marks. In the same vein, the BS about the "Supreme Law Library" is designed to give his writings some credibility, when in fact any credibility they have isely accidental. I would wager that any Quatlooser who has practiced law has never used any of this "library's" resources, if indeed they have ever heard of it.

I wonder if the "Federal Witness" business comes from having testified in his own behalf in civil or criminal proceedings against him.

[The Operative]

I have yet to review all that was said. Thanks again for the in depth and detailed response.

Sometimes, you have to play with fire to learn one's own limitations or presumption of limitation... you can call me cocky, patronizing or what have you. I do not covet my strengths or weaknesses, I am that I am. I can't say I have much of an ego to protect and from what I read, I did find some of the comments humorous. Thanks for the laughs.

If you are willing to listen, we are willing to let you know what is the law and what is not.

Now, if you would humor my presence but a bit more. I seem to have uncovered something very interesting, in great part due to the synergy or questions that arose in my mind from this post and elsewhere. I found this very intriguing article answering some very fundamental questions about the IRS, certified by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of California, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, Author and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library.

Unfortunately, what you have 'uncovered' is just more nonsense. Paul Andrew Mitchell is simply insane. He files all kinds of nonsense, makes all kinds of claims, and nothing can be verified. He is so bonkers that someone has actually setup a website about him detailing some of his idiocy with the courts. http://www.paulandrewmitchell.com/

Did you know? "After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union."

Nonsense. The IRS is a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department. As a government agency, it has the jurisdiction to operate within all of the States and territories.

And another very crucial point from "31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service":

21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?

There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term “income” is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth. “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”

More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.

Go here for the full article: http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Even more nonsense. Income does not have to be defined within the IRC. However, gross income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income are defined within the IRC. That is all that is needed. The Tax Protester FAQ has more info refuting that argument. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section61

Just because one person feels that the code is vague is not grounds for declaring the code void.

"Did you know that the Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation incorporated in the State of Nevada on October 10, 1994?"

I have not verified the above statement, but according to Eddie Kahn's testimony he requested a Certificate of Fact from the Secretary of the State of Nevada certifying the existence of the Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service as a corporation with status in good standing.

Nonsense. The IRS is not a private corporation. Read the following from the Tax Protester FAQ. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#IRS
BTW, Eddie Kahn was one of Wesley Snipes co-defendants in his tax trial. Kahn was convicted and, if I am not mistaken, he is facing additional charges in a separate trial.

I guess the cat's out of the bag huh?...

Thanks for playing your part. Couldn't have done this without your help ; )

-Thillum

Nope, you have not found anything worth repeating. Again, what you are doing is similar to asking a first grader how a nuclear reactor works, instead of asking a nuclear engineer. That is just stupid. If you want to know about tax law and the requirements to file taxes, ask CPAs and lawyers.

[Imalawman]

Thillium,

Part of the reason that people find the elementary portions of the IRC "vague" is that they have never actually studied it professionally. It's a body of law, its complex. I find it interesting that people don't have an issue with the fact that bankruptcy laws are complex and must be navigated by an attorney, but yet the IRC is supposed to be this shining beacon of simplicity and clarity.

"income" is in essence, "everything that comes in". That's why we use words to modify the term income - "gross income", "taxable income", "net income", and "adjusted gross income". Section 61, for individuals, really does start with the proposition that all things which you receive during the year is income. But the Code does not end there, of course, but don't freak out because it starts there. You have to learn about fundamental tax concepts.

Take the concept of "tax basis". This one concept may be the reason why so many TPs get confused. Let's say I go out and purchase land worth $100,000 for $100,000.00 in cash. This is an even exchange for you because you always have a tax basis in cash equal to the stated value. Let's say that you hold onto that land for 5 years and now it's in a prime location and worth $500,000.00. You sell it for $500,000 in cash. What is the taxable income from this exchange?

Well, you received $500,000, but you have a tax basis of $100,000 because that is that post-taxed dollars you expended to acquire the assets (and you've taken no depreciation). Your "wealth" only increased by $400,000.00. Guess what? That is what the IRC treats as taxable income from that transaction, $400,000.00. Value received less tax basis. Isn't that simple and doesn't that make sense?

Now, let's look at labor. Now we have to introduce another concept - capital versus non-capital asset. Land, in the example above, can be treated in that manner because it is a capital asset. Your own ability to provide labor has not been classified as a capital asset, thus you cannot attribute costs expended to maintain your ability to the tax basis of your ability to provide labor. Don't like it? Well, sorry, that's just the law. So, you end up having no tax basis in your own labor. Thus, when you receive any amount of money for expended labor, it is taxable income.

Those are basics of any income tax system. It is, in some ways, the foundation of the tax code. When you look at the tax code in that light, it really does start to make sense. Since you cannot add expenditures into the basis of labor, the tax code allows a certain amount of deductible expenses to offset the costs of providing labor. Enter personal exemptions, mortgage interest, standard deduction, etc. Meanwhile, costs to create or maintain a capital asset are "capitalized" and become part of the tax basis.

After this point, everything becomes a variation on a theme. But you must start from the beginning to make sense of the more complex issues. Otherwise you get confused very quickly. Let me also ask you this. Forget about my 7 years of study related to tax in undergrad and law school. I then spent a year at one of the top universities in the country doing nothing except studying the tax code. I mean, nothing. 10-12 hours 6 days a week studying the tax code. Do you really think there's a loophole that I've missed? That my professors missed? Do you really think someone who may spend, what, 2 hours a week on a good week looking at the tax code could discover something so significant and so elementary?

Just to give you an analogy - you saying that to me is like someone walking up to a math professor and saying, "I just learned that 2 + 2 = 5!" Why is it that you can't believe that someone who's spent so much time, money and effort studying the tax law would actually know what he's talking about?

[Paul]

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.

My question was intended to get you to summarize Rose's arugment in a manner that showed you had read or heard it with understanding. If this is the best answer you can produce, then you have proved you didn't understand it.

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.

And my answer to your question about whether the income tax is direct or indirect is that there is nothing that follows from the answer. Why don't you think about my answer again?

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?

I'll repeat the answer again. The constituion allows both direct and indirect taxes. If the income tax is indirect, the only requirement in the constitution is that it be uniform throughout the states. It is. So there is no constitutional problem if it's indirect. If it is direct, the constitution has only one requirement -- that it be apportioned among the states by population. However, the 16th amendment says that requirement does not apply to taxes on income. So, again,if the income tax is direct, there is no constitutional problem. Either way, there is no constitutional problem with the income tax. End of problem.