Losthead Thillum Unhappium - Robert Souza

[Thillum]

Forgive me if I don't address all of you. I see no point.

JG said it quite eloquently and on key:

The basic concept is that the income tax is legal.
It could very well be classified as legal plunder.
But Hendrickson, Rose, et al imagine reasons why it is not legal.

If you object to the income tax as legal plunder your recourse is not to ignore your legal duty to file and pay income tax. Your recourse is to get the law changed.

If you object to the income tax because it is legal plunder then it is a fool's errand to try to show that it is not legal. That is contrary to the basic premise. That will not get the law changed.

Basically, you are a fool to follow those trying to show that the income tax is illegal.

I couldn't agree more JG, thank you for being concise. Except you er in the fact that "Hendrickson, Rose, et[c] do not imagine why it is not legal", but rather scrutinize the legalese in order to abrogate the mis-identification and limited jurisdiction of municipal law. Regardless, with what you have said, you illuminate what the swine and leeches peddle verbatim to confuse, deceive and coerce the masses.

Inherently you either know what I am talking about or you don't. One is either aware or asleep and none the wiser.

Go ahead, post some incoherent arbitrary mindless thought in hopes that you may sequester the truth, but I am one, of one and the many (100th monkey experiment); We will rise in light of the truth from which we have come with such magnitude and exacting precision. Readily you should be afraid if you choose sides for verily, you are no more enlightened, but as ignorant as the rest.

Fractals of the hologram, we are aligning with the center of the milky way galaxy. We are shifting back into the feminine energy.

If you truly know what is about you, you would know that the schema in place serves a purpose. Yet if you fail to see the true purpose and have become but a mindless tool in its execution thinking you have triumphed, I tell you, you are a sheep like the rest. The Illuminati are a collective of kabalists, paganist, gnostics, or whatever symbolic metaphor better assists the mind in understanding that they are following the cycles of evolution, assisting humanity in its collective evolution through the forces of darkness. What better way to bring about great change than with contrast?

Wake up, this is THE most significant era in human history. They didn't make any movies about Y2K. Nor were there documentaries on public television encompassing the prophecy of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, etc. Our highly esteemed scientists in the white coats are even describing the cosmological significance of 2012. You really think this is about whether or not I am liable in paying income tax? Sure, it might of been, but I play with fire and see where it takes me.

How about this?

Why not stop resisting the change, purporting you 'know' the law, peddling deception and start assisting our evolution as a species? Begin by asking the right questions; questions that stipulate productive and coherent dispositions in service of the highest good. By merely asking a coherent question you are already in effect molding the very fabric of your limited paradigm; for verily in order to fathom the depths of such a concept implies the inception and existence of an answer, otherwise the limited and collective sense of self would not be able to make any coherence of what does permeate the realm of awareness. Therefore, it is by asking the right questions that we create progress in our own conscious evolution. How many times do you want to reincarnate?

If you can realize that we are all on the same side than my purpose posting here is done.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Therefore, I am not a TP or TD; Stop the mindless bickering.. I am merely extracting myself from the deception.

Fear serves a purpose, to control the mindless until they awaken... Its only a matter of time.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Thillum,

There's a reason why they call it "dope".

[.]

By merely asking a coherent question

OK. How's your "extraction" from the "deception" going?

Got any frivolous filing penalties, liens, levies or losses in court to show for it? Or, have you merely been trolling the Crack-den (and us) with gargantuan piles of incomprehensible gibberish while not having enough gross income to require the filing of a return?

There you go. Three coherent questions.

I won't hold my breath waiting for non-gibberish answers.

[LurkerRob]

Wake up, this is THE most significant era in human history. They didn't make any movies about Y2K.

How about Y2K http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215370/

Nor were there documentaries on public television encompassing the prophecy of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, etc.

The Man Who Saw Tomorrow (1981) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081109/
History Channel -The Lost Book of Nostradamus http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-lost ... stradamus/
Discovery Channel - Nostradamus (Documentary

etc

[jg]

Allow me to quote my earlier post in this thread:

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.

Ask yourself-What is the legal authority of Hendrickson et al as compared to that of the Supreme Court of the United States?

[Parvati]

Thillium wrote:

Fractals of the hologram, we are aligning with the center of the milky way galaxy. We are shifting back into the feminine energy.

Have you been reading Deepak Chopra as a side-dish to go with your tax-related literature? Because while the universe is, indeed, teeming with energy, the labels that people like to apply to these forces are typically as unscientific as the typical tax-denier argument is illegal.

When people rely on mysticism to explain how the universe works, it is usually because they don't have a particularly stellar grasp of the scientific explanations. When people who want to learn about taxation rely on the pontifications of individuals who have no real expertise in that area, they are not learning the "science" behind the reality. They're learning a lie. And when they spread that misinformation to others, they're multiplying the original error, and spreading the lie.

That, my friend, is when things begin to break down.

When I teach research skills, one of the first things we cover is how to evaluate information, and that process begins with, "Consider the source." If you're researching matters of medicine, it's generally considered a good idea to choose source material that was written or researched by a medical professional. The same can be said of any subject--the web pages we look at and the books we read could have been created by anyone. It is good common sense to check out the individual(s) who wrote it.

I am not maligning the average person's ability to research the issues that concern them. I am, however, concerned that the internet, as a whole, doesn't have proofreaders, or fact-checkers. Anyone can throw their ideas out here for others to read. That means that I could, for example, create a web page about the best way to operate a nuclear reactor. While I'm the last person who should be providing that kind of information, to someone else who knew nothing about the subject, it might sound rather convincing.

All I'm suggesting is that the 'net is vast. It isn't difficult to find someone out there who believes that Earth is flat, that they are being abducted by aliens on a regular basis, or that it is a good idea to pray over your sick child rather than seeking medical attention. If my son is sick, I don't consult a faith-healer or a homeopath--I take him to our family doctor. (Who, I might ad, is nearly 70 years old and still practicing.) If that doesn't work, we find a specialist, or go to the ER.

If I have legal questions or issues regarding taxation, I don't visit the corner barbershop--I consult a lawyer or accountant or a lawyer who specializes in tax law. That's not to say that we're incapable of doing our own research into these subjects, but if we don't have proper guidance, we find ourselves following the wrong path, and that's when we can get lost in the woods. Just because some other folks happen to be lost out there, too, doesn't mean you're not all lost out there together. Even if the others tell you to stay there, and that it's where you should to be, it's not because that's the truth--it's because they don't want to find themselves out there alone.

I hope you find your way home.

[Duke2Earl]

The entire purpose of communication is to convey a thought from one person to another. Based on that premise, the only thought that Thrillum was trying to convey is that he is master of gibberish. Mission accomplished.

[LPC]

I am, however, concerned that the internet, as a whole, doesn't have proofreaders, or fact-checkers. Anyone can throw their ideas out here for others to read.

However, the more sophisticated search engines incorporate a kind of peer-review into their rankings, because they tend to rate more highly information that comes from web sites that tend to address the subject more often, and are connected to other web sites with similar information.

So, for example, a website with lots of information about taxes, and with lots of links to and from other websites with information about taxes, is going to get a higher ranking in a tax-related search than a website with lots of information about fishing gear. But a search for information about fishing gear is going to produce results that rank information from fishing-related sites higher than from tax-related sites.

This kind of ranking tends to push the more reliable information towards the top.

Another benefit of the Internet over paper-based research is that it's easier to check information, because articles can have links to original source materials and, even if they don't, it is often possible to find other sources on the same topic to check the facts.

Now, some of this stuff can be self-reinforcing, so that nonsense from one website can spread to other websites (i.e., "go viral") and, in the absence of adult supervision, can become widely accepted as "fact." But that's more likely to happen to political news than legal or scientific news.

[The Operative]

<SNIP>
Except you er[sic] in the fact that "Hendrickson, Rose, et[c] do not imagine why it is not legal", but rather scrutinize the legalese in order to abrogate the mis-identification and limited jurisdiction of municipal law.

Nonsense. Hendrickson, Rose and others of their ilk, have already decided that they do not have to pay taxes and then search for something to support that erroneous position. Unfortunately, the only thing that they can find are made up or out of context quotes from court decisions or they otherwise ignore the ordinary meaning of words within the statutes. In other words, you are still asking a first grader how a nuclear reactor works instead of asking a nuclear engineer.

Regardless, with what you have said, you illuminate what the swine and leeches peddle verbatim to confuse, deceive and coerce the masses.

More nonsense. The only swine and/or leeches attempting to deceive the masses by what they are peddling are those like Hendrickson and Rose. Fortunately, most people have the mental acuity to see that Hendrickson and Rose are wrong.

Inherently you either know what I am talking about or you don't. One is either aware or asleep and none the wiser.

Right. So when are you going to wake up?

Go ahead, post some incoherent arbitrary mindless thought in hopes that you may sequester the truth, but I am one, of one and the many (100th monkey experiment); We will rise in light of the truth from which we have come with such magnitude and exacting precision. Readily you should be afraid if you choose sides for verily, you are no more enlightened, but as ignorant as the rest.

Hold your breath and stomp your feet until you pass out. That will have more effect on eliminating the income tax than what you are currently doing.

Fractals of the hologram, we are aligning with the center of the milky way galaxy. We are shifting back into the feminine energy.

If you truly know what is about you, you would know that the schema in place serves a purpose. Yet if you fail to see the true purpose and have become but a mindless tool in its execution thinking you have triumphed, I tell you, you are a sheep like the rest. The Illuminati are a collective of kabalists, paganist, gnostics, or whatever symbolic metaphor better assists the mind in understanding that they are following the cycles of evolution, assisting humanity in its collective evolution through the forces of darkness. What better way to bring about great change than with contrast?

Gibberish. If you would stop falling for every conspiracy theory nonsense out there, you might actually learn how the world works.

Wake up, this is THE most significant era in human history. They didn't make any movies about Y2K. Nor were there documentaries on public television encompassing the prophecy of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, etc. Our highly esteemed scientists in the white coats are even describing the cosmological significance of 2012. You really think this is about whether or not I am liable in paying income tax? Sure, it might of been, but I play with fire and see where it takes me.

More nonsense. I'll make a bet with you. If the world ends and everyone dies in December 2012, I'll pay you $100,000,000 in January 2013. If the world doesn't end, will you come back here and admit you're wrong?

How about this?

Why not stop resisting the change, purporting you 'know' the law, peddling deception and start assisting our evolution as a species? Begin by asking the right questions; questions that stipulate productive and coherent dispositions in service of the highest good. By merely asking a coherent question you are already in effect molding the very fabric of your limited paradigm; for verily in order to fathom the depths of such a concept implies the inception and existence of an answer, otherwise the limited and collective sense of self would not be able to make any coherence of what does permeate the realm of awareness. Therefore, it is by asking the right questions that we create progress in our own conscious evolution. How many times do you want to reincarnate?

If you can realize that we are all on the same side than my purpose posting here is done.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Therefore, I am not a TP or TD; Stop the mindless bickering.. I am merely extracting myself from the deception.

Fear serves a purpose, to control the mindless until they awaken... Its only a matter of time.

Keep working on that word salad generator, you will get it working right any day now.

[Paul]

Does anyone recall seeing any of the bozos who come here to "enlighten" us with their latest cut-and-paste nonsense about income taxes retreat so fast and so far? In one thread, Thillum has raised and, as soon as he's challenged, abandoned, the IRC, the constitution, and legal philosophy, and now he's on to the Mayan calendar. Isn't there anything this moron can even try to defend?

[LPC]

We're nearing 100 posts, but I hate to end such a (potentially) enlightening thread.

Will Thillum return to set us straight?

Stay tuned (for at least a few more posts).

[LPC]

Whatever. We are near the 100 post threshold, which is the limit 'round these parts, so I am shutting this pig down.

Damn.