The Logic of Legal Discourse

[webhick]

I try and think or do one impossible thing before lunch, every day.

That would explain the 22-year-old Toronto girl.

[silversopp]

Juror nullification, however, is not something to be celebrated. It actually is a violation of the rule of law, albeit one that has no ready solution.

Sometimes a bad law should be violated, and the jury system provides a legal way for that to be accomplished (boy does that sound strange)

Juries being the best judge of facts is, in my opinion, complete nonsense. In any given case, the best judge of the facts would be relevent subject matter experts. The average Joe off the street has no expertise on most subjects and are thus swayed almost entirely by the performance of the lawyers. A trial is often more about presentation rather than a strict analysis of the facts at hand. (O.J. Simpson)

With the above belief, I see no other real productive purpose for a jury except that the jury system requires consent by "the People" for every conviction.

[Quixote]

Sometimes a bad law should be violated, and the jury system provides a legal way for that to be accomplished (boy does that sound strange)

No, it provides an illegal, albeit reasonably safe, way to violate bad laws. It also provides an illegal, albeit reasonably safe, way to violate good laws.

[LPC]

Second, the "supreme law" is the Constitution, Statutes and treaties, not codes and cases (and not to mention the Bible).

And you lose by that standard also.

Third, when case law contradicts supreme law, it is clearly void.

And that's where you drift off into La-La Land.

Talking about a "supreme law" that is different from the law that is applied by actual courts in actual courtrooms is like talking about laws of physics that are different from the reality we can observe. Things can fall up, the speed of light is not absolute, and heat flows from cold objects to hot objects. It's fascinating stuff, but totally imaginary and totally useless.

But it appeals to you and other tax deniers because it really does have nothing to do with reality. If you could deal with reality, then you would understand that Congress has imposed a tax on the money you get for working. You can't accept that reality, so you develop elaborate fantasies about legal systems that don't exist in which you would be considered intelligent.

[SteveSy]

Since I have sworn to uphold the law, I do not need to decide for myself whether one law or another is noncontradictory or potentially contradictory except to the extent that I do so within the bounds of -- can you guess what's coming next? -- within the bounds of the law. To develop my understanding of what the law is, I study primarily the actual texts of the Constitution (AND the case law interpreting it); the statutes (AND the case law interpreting them); the regs (AND the case law interpreting them); the treaties (AND the case law interpreting them) --- are you starting to get the drift?

Nothing in the constitution provides that the law is whatever a judge says it is. I believe many of you have adopted this belief erroneously. The unitary executive is a perfect example to show that not all matters of fundamental law is in the hands of the courts. Each person has the right and power to decide what is or is not constitutional. The power is vested in “We the People”. In other words you are not bound to accept an interpretation held by any court. That is not to say that if you are in front of the judge that made the decision that you would not lose your case. This only means that in his little world he’s not going to agree with you. However it may very well be you’re in another jurisdiction and you win on the exact same issue, nothing makes courts the final interpreter of fundamental law. The constitution only grants the courts power to interpret law it does not give them the power to set or make law. The power to make law is limited to congress and that is limited to what is allowed by the constitution.

Congress is supposedly representative of the people; the people cannot give those who represent them more power than any one of them personally have. It's illogical to claim you can authorize someone to act on your behalf with more power than you have.

The constitution is what allows the federal courts to exist in their current form they cannot by fiat redefine what created them they are bound by it. Marshall’s argument to have the Supreme Court void an act of congress equally applies to the Supreme Court when it rules in conflict of the Constitution.

[Nikki]

But, by definition IN the Constitution, the Supreme Court can not rule in conflict with the Constitution because the Supreme court is the final arbiter on law.

Obviously, the Supreme Court could issue an inane opinion such as the Office of the President is inherently hereditary, but impeachment would swiftly follow.

Remember, for all of their authority, the Supremes have almost no power. They rely on the Executive branch to enforce their decisions.

[grixit]

I try and think or do one impossible thing before lunch, every day.

As long as you don't do like some people and try to drink one impossible thing at lunch.

[Famspear]

Eeeeyikes! Wow!:

"Nothing in the constitution provides that the law is whatever a judge says it is. I believe many of you have adopted this belief erroneously."

Good grief! Get real, fella! This is supposed to be the easy part!

Nothing in the Constitution EXPRESSLY provides for a Department of the Air Force. The Constitution says the President shall be commander-in-chief of the "army" and "navy," but says nothing about an "Air Force."

Nothing in the Constitution EXPRESSLY provides for a power to acquire vast tracts of land. Some of our Founding Fathers had questions about whether we really had the "power'' to acquire a vast tract called the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon. Somehow they figured it out, though.

Nothing in the Constitution EXPRESSLY provides for a power to set up a Federal Commmunications Commission, or a Federal Trade Commission, or a State Department Bureau of Intelligence & Research, or an Internal Revenue Service.

Nothing in the Constitution EXPRESSLY PROVIDES for each court to have a bailiff, or a court reporter, or a court clerk.

Nothing in the constitution provides -- or EXPRESSLY provides-- for lots and lots and lots of things. Lots of things that are part of our government and legal system today came about long after the people who wrote the Constitution were long dead. And lots of other things came about long BEFORE the constitution was written.

Clue: The judicial power, the power of the courts to decide cases, and the concept of case law did not arise out of nowhere in a poof of smoke last week, fella.

Clue: Our legal system comes to us from Merrie Olde England, in the form of something called "English common law." Remember the "thirteen original colonies"?? Was someone asleep during that seventh grade American history class, or maybe during that ninth grade civics class? The last time I looked, English "case law" PREDATED the U.S. Constitution by several hundred years.

Clue: English common law is primarily, indeed almost exclusively, JUDGE-MADE LAW. It is emphatically the province and duty of the courts (not you, not me, not that fellow behind the tree) to say what the law is -- in the context of an actual case or controversy involving real parties. CASE LAW, fella!

Clue: Read the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Clue: "Case law. The aggregate of reported CASES as forming a body of jurisprudence, or THE LAW of a particular subject as evidenced or formed by the adjudged cases, in DISTINCTION TO STATUTES and other sources of law. SEE COMMON LAW." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 196 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

Clue: "the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action [ . . . ] which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF THE COURTS". Black's Law Dictionary, p. 250-251 (capitalization added for emphasis). "'Common law' consists of those principles [ . . . ] which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 251.

Clue: Neither I nor the hundreds of thousands of other lawyers and judges in the United States are making this up. The term "case law" was not invented by me and a couple of my buddies last week down at the local bar. Yours, Famspear

[Famspear]

I love this. SteveSy, let's look at your verbiage again:

"Nothing in the constitution provides that the law is whatever a judge says it is. I believe many of you have adopted this belief erroneously."

Clue: "Judge-made law. A phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature never intended. It is perhaps MORE COMMONLY USED as meaning, simply, THE LAW ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND DECISIONS. Laws having their source in JUDICIAL DECISIONS as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or administrative regulations." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 755 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

--Yours, Famspear

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: Another clue:

Precedent: " [ . . . ] A rule of LAW established for the first time BY A COURT for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1059 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy: Another clue:

Precedent: " [ . . . ] A rule of LAW established for the first time BY A COURT for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1059 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

And?

I understand stare decisis...

Making the connection between a settled line of cases and the claim that judges make law is a leap. A leap made by judges no less which has been accepted by those who wish to seek their favor. It may be the expected outcome while you have a case in front of them but that doesn't mean its law. Only congress can make law, the constitution specifically says so. The constitution does not say only courts can interpret the law.

Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives

[Quixote]

Only congress can make law, the constitution specifically says so. The constitution does not say only courts can interpret the law.


Quote:
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives

No, only Congress may legislate. The judicial power, including the power to make case law and interpret statutory law, resides in the judicial branch.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: Let's look at your latest verbiage.

--"Making the connection between a settled line of cases and the claim that judges make law is a leap. A leap made by judges no less which has been accepted by those who wish to seek their favor."

No, to say that judges make LAW is not a "leap." Go back and read the definitions from Black's Law Dictionary.

--"It may be the expected outcome while you have a case in front of them but that doesn't mean its law."

No, that is incorrect. Case law is one kind of law, just as is administrative law, statutory law, treaty law, and constitutional law.

--"Only congress can make law, the constitution specifically says so."

No, the Constitution does NOT say that "only Congress can make law." What the Constitution says is that the "legislative power" shall be vested in the Congress; the "executive power" shall be vested in the President; the "judicial power" shall be vested in the courts. The Constitution does not provide detailed definition of the contours or borders between the broad categories of three powers. The Constitution does not define the terms "legislative power," or "executive power," or "judicial power." However, trust me, the Founding Fathers -- many of whom were lawyers -- had a clue as to what they were intending when they decided to include these words in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers grew up as subjects of the British Crown, and English common law (by and large judge-made law) was the law of the land in which our Founding Fathers grew up.

Under the U.S. legal system, the executive power includes the power to make regulations, which are also known as administrative law. Indeed, some executive branch agencies also have limited interpretive power as well (which is often thought of as being a judicial power).

Under the U.S. legal system, like the English system from which it came, the judicial power includes the power to MAKE law. Indeed, much of our criminal law, for example, was originally judge-made English common law.

--"The constitution does not say only courts can interpret the law."

Wow, this statement is actually correct! But not in the sense in which you mean it. Tax protesters want to argue that their interpretation of the tax law is correct, and that the courts' interpretation is incorrect FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. And what I and others here are telling you is that the tax protesters are wrong -- as a matter of law.

In that ninth grade civics class, we were taught:

--the legislative branch "makes" the law;

--the executive branch "enforces" the law;

--the judicial branch "interprets" the law;

Now, this teaching is true as a GENERALITY. Like many generalities about the legal system (and about life in general), however, the teaching is problematic in its application to particular situations. The Constitution does not define many of its most important terms.

The historical debate over how far courts should go in "interpreting" the law - and the debate over how we define the point at which interpretion becomes improper "making" of law -- is a legitimate, historical and ongoing debate. To argue, however, that case law is not judge-made law, that common law is not generally judge-made law, to say that judges cannot in that sense properly make law under the U.S. system, is neither historically nor legally correct.

To say that all the case law on Federal income taxation that does not comport with the tax protester's theory about "what the law is" is "not really" law is completely without legal merit and is legally frivolous. The courts have uniformly ruled tax protester arguments to be without legal merit. --Famspear

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: Please re-read the following written by LPC, posted earlier in this thread:

----"[ . . . ] contrary to what tax protesters think, law is not an abstraction that exists separate from the reality of what happens in courtrooms. The concept of 'law' only has meaning as it has consequences, and it only has consequences if a court does something. So the concept of 'law' cannot be separated from the actions of courts [ . . . ]"

The law is what a given judge DOES to you on a give day, in a given court room. That's an oversimplication, and yes law is also much more than this. But you've got to get your brain wrapped around these basic concepts if you want to succeed. -- Famspear

[Imalawman]

Under the U.S. legal system, the executive power includes the power to make regulations, which are also known as administrative law. Indeed, some executive branch agencies also have limited interpretive power as well (which is often thought of as being a judicial power).

One things I've found out in my line of work is that TPs don't understand the concept of Administrative Law. They're confused and befuddled by it. Mainly becuase they've ascribed to a strange view of the legal system and Ad Law turns that view on its head.

Fam Spear, good for you for making these long and thorough arguments. If you wonder why the more veteran posters here don't contribute as much, its becuase they've already tried many times. However, we need people with a fresh perspective to try it again. After a while, though, your head will hurt from beating it against a wall.

[Famspear]

Yeah, and I always see my role as that of a teacher here, not as a "persuader", so it's relaxing for me. I am the teacher, they are the students (recalcitrant students, of course). My job is to put the information out there. Whether they accept the teaching is their business.

My sense, based on a completely unscientific, non-systematic gathering of data, is that many if not most tax protesters cannot or will not get their brains wrapped around this basic stuff. Tax protestation is delusion. People who are deluded are stuck head first in a very tight rabbit hole, and have a difficult time emotionally wiggling and backing themselves out of the rabbit hole.

The main constraint for me is time. Teaching is fun, but it takes some time which is difficult of course in the real world. --Famspear

[SteveSy]

The historical debate over how far courts should go in "interpreting" the law - and the debate over how we define the point at which interpretion becomes improper "making" of law -- is a legitimate, historical and ongoing debate. To argue, however, that case law is not judge-made law, that common law is not generally judge-made law, to say that judges cannot in that sense properly make law under the U.S. system, is neither historically nor legally correct.

I disagree in that from a historical perspective it is not well settled. Common law is the commonly accepted law. Judges merely adopted what already existed and a well settled line of cases was derived from it. Today of course it is well accepted by lawyers and judges that judges make law via a settled line of cases. Try reading some of the works by James Stoner, he has thoroughly put down the Holmes theory. Also try and read up on Sir Edward Coke's work. Precedent that goes against reason does not bind, therefore cannot be law. By elimination it is logical to conclude that Judges do not nor can make law.

To say that all the case law on Federal income taxation that does not comport with the tax protester's theory about "what the law is" is "not really" law is completely without legal merit and is legally frivolous. The courts have uniformly ruled tax protester arguments to be without legal merit. --Famspear

I never once argued a tax protestor’s theory of "what the law is" is "not really law". Nice attempt at a strawman though....

The statutory law is what congress says it is, nothing more nothing less. Judges do not make law of any sort they merely interpret what already exists. I realize this goes outside your little box which you were mentally stuffed in by your education, namely by lawyers and judges wishing to elevate their public importance beyond their intended purpose. No personal offense intended.

[John J. Bulten]

(SteveSy, thanks so much for your efforts as well. Please do not let my lack of direct response detract from my essential agreement with and encouragement of your viewpoints.)

The case law interpreting each provision of the Constitution clings to and is enforceable as the AUTHORITATIVE legal statement of what that Constitution means, and that case law is SUPERIOR to mere statutes passed by Congress. I am bound by case law.

You say that case law is superior to the supreme law. So what is "case law"? Near as I can tell, the physical referent of (American) "case law" is every document ever written by an Article 3 judge and issued in an Article 3 court, as well as copies made therefrom and published independently. Fair enough? So if the Constitution says "white" and such "case law" says that means "black" (this exaggeration is actually not too far from the Bill of Rights as interpreted by the slaughterhouse cases), you happily uphold the proposition that (for these legal purposes) white means black. (In my case, the statute says "public" and "case law" appears to say, with great hesitance and ambiguity, that means "private".) Is there never such thing as "bad law", namely, case law which should not be obeyed? Never in any time in history? Has no despot ever issued a Catch-22 order which, though lawfully issued in his country, is deliberately contradictory? But if, so, wouldn't the existence of "bad law" undercut your view?

Neither I nor any other lawyer trained in this country has ANY TROUBLE AT ALL figuring out whether a given statement is a holding in a case properly before an Article III court or an Article I court or any other court. No trouble at all.

Generally, no. Agreed that the American system creates great, consistent traditional delimiters for distinguishing case law from non. But those traditions are neither perfect nor indefectible, and are not proper for binding your conscience as if they're perfect. In some countries, like Freedonia, the law is whatever the Great Dictator is saying at the moment. That principle is generally accepted by all citizens (except a few which conveniently disappear). I know you didn't swear to uphold the law in other countries, but then you didn't really swear to uphold "the law", you swore to uphold "the Constitution", by which you (and American case law) mean "American case law", as defined above. What happens when American case law demonstrates itself to be capable of contradiction: would you continue to follow it if the delimiters began being removed, one by one, which formerly made it so easy for lawyers to tell what is case law and what isn't? Could that never happen? Either "American case law" is defectible (as the course of history suggests), or it has some describable indelible perfection. To take a cognizable example, if a judge is required to pass biennial elections for retention in office, and there is a close vote with an ongoing disputed recount, and the judge insisted on continuing to hold court in the interim, it is suddenly ambiguous whether "case law" is being issued. Or if a judge commits a significant typo (e.g. I once corrected a contract which read "Assignee" for "Assignor", which if let stand in an otherwise insignificant clause would have vitiated the entire contract), which one is the case law: the judge's speech, or the judge's contrary intent? Though these examples may be dismissible, it is certainly easy to construct other failures where the fail-safe procedure is NOT clear-cut and where reasonable parties may disagree as to what "case law" really is. In short, case law is ontologically defectible, but you presume this will never affect you. What perfection adheres to American case law to prevent this ever affecting your ability to uphold it?

Your statement that such a law will "have no legal effect" is without legal merit. I understand that you feel strongly the way you do, and that you have a tangible and admirable sense of that the law should be logical, and non-contradictory, and fair -- but your reasoning is not proper legal analysis, and your statement is not correct. You continue to strain to try to show that law should be logical (or at least non-contradictory).

Of course, the intent was "no legal effect" insofar as it is contradictory. The noncontradiction of ideal law is, in fact, a major theme of CtC, and (if what you say is true) you are right to combat this philosophy at the root rather than at the branches. You appear to uphold a potentially contradictory law, resolving contradictions in favor of whatever the judge has said most recently (I guess), regardless of whether the judge is drunk or otherwise externally stimulated on the bench, and regardless of right and wrong. Is there never a point at which upholding such case law becomes wrong by some higher standard of law? Neither in our nor in another country?

"the mark of intellect is the ability to hold two mutually contradictory concepts in one's mind simultaneously"

And Ravi Zacharias said, even in India (the home of either-or thinking) we look both ways before crossing the street: it is EITHER the bus OR me, not both of us. Your professor is flatly calling the rejection of logic "intellect". I know that logic itself proves that logic is incomplete (as expressed by Gödel and others), but we do not reject it on that ground, we recognize its insufficiency and use it so far as we use any other tool. Similarly, "law" as it exists in our minds is simply a worthy but incomplete tool. The rejection of logic because demonstrably incomplete throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Yeah, those people were probably reading Orwell.

Whatever Orwell said to that effect was said in parody. He said his entire aim, especially in Animal Farm and 1984, was to defeat totalitarianism. I too read Animal Farm young, and completely missed the signifance of the pigs with the paint. I had to reread it several times to catch most everything intended. Heller (Catch-22) was also a parodist.

I like LPC's formulations and his quotations from Holmes much better than my "the law is what the courts say the law is"

True, Holmes expressed the same viewpoint as you. My point is that "law" as he described it, while laudable, is in fact incomplete, defectible, and deficient. It is a tool neither lightly abandoned nor clutchingly coronated.

"Case law. The aggregate of reported CASES as forming a body of jurisprudence, or THE LAW of a particular subject as evidenced or formed by the adjudged cases, in DISTINCTION TO STATUTES and other sources of law. SEE COMMON LAW." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 196 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

"Judge-made law. A phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature never intended. It is perhaps MORE COMMONLY USED as meaning, simply, THE LAW ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND DECISIONS. Laws having their source in JUDICIAL DECISIONS as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or administrative regulations." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 755 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

Precedent: " [ . . . ] A rule of LAW established for the first time BY A COURT for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1059 (5th ed. 1979) (capitalization added for emphasis).

I should have thought of that before now. You have just demonstrated one of my main points: you take your definitions of case law, NOT from case law, but from Mr. Black, who did not to my knowledge deliver such definition from the bench. This is another flaw in case law: it is not self-authenticating, it does not contain its own authority. It derives authority from the Constitution, which explicitly derives authority from the People. Case law exists because it is authorized by the People, and the People, individually and in twelves and en masse, have certain authorities to redirect it. (God or Ideal Law, which gives authority to the People, is the only self-authenticating authority.) So during the Civil War, where there are two Presidents, or during any Roman Catholic crisis where there were two Popes (designating one as Antipope might not happen until decades later), there are two competing systems of case law upholding each one, and the People decide the question extralegally. The fact that "case law" caught up with the People in affirming their majority decision does not make "case law" superior to the People. So when you quote Black's (for convenience), you just reillustrate that case law does not authorize itself, but takes its authority from outside, and eventually from the People.

No, to say that judges make LAW is not a "leap." Go back and read the definitions from Black's Law Dictionary .... Case law is one kind of law, just as is administrative law, statutory law, treaty law, and constitutional law.

You continue to wave Black's around as if it's case law! The law expressed in the Constitution, statutes, and treaties is "supreme". The law expressed in administrative and court decisions is not supreme. An interpretation cannot be independent from the supreme law it interprets.

The law is what a given judge DOES to you on a give day, in a given court room. That's an oversimplication, and yes law is also much more than this. But you've got to get your brain wrapped around these basic concepts if you want to succeed.

And here, after you espouse the full-bore oligarchic view of this country, you act like this view is necessary "to succeed", by which you probably mean "to win court cases". Upholding the law is not about winning court cases, as we've heard about Gandhi and King and Parks, not to mention Christ, who lost six court cases the same day. Question your "success".

My sense, based on a completely unscientific, non-systematic gathering of data, is that many if not most tax protesters cannot or will not get their brains wrapped around this basic stuff. Tax protestation is delusion.

When I was young I was antitax, but did not "protest" in any way other than being late sometimes and paying the penalties and interest demanded. Now, I am no longer antitax and do not protest at all (though I would be on moral grounds, if there should ever arise a direct tax demanded of me without apportionment, which has not arisen under the current system). I uphold the law as written, and I generally uphold case law too: in fact, to be persnickety, there is NO case law in my district or circuit or the USSC which addresses the issue in question (though I count now up to five bad precedents elsewhere). So even under your definition of case law, I am neither delusional nor antilaw to prophesy that, when I should choose to frame an issue in Bulten v US, I will do so knowledgeable of case law (including indirect precedents), and confident of victory.

Now let me summarize, because we both ramble in our "teaching" modes. To you, "The law is what a given judge DOES to you on a give[n] day, in a given court room. That's an oversimplication." (1) Are you content with having sworn your fealty to such law? Do you accept the rules you have affirmed even if they should bite you (e.g., a judge without reason or rhyme revokes your license for an undisclosed felt injury, to say the least)? (2) Do you agree that case law has these deficiencies: defectible (potentially contradictory), amoral (potentially "bad" but binding), incomplete (potentially insufficient), non-self-authoritative (potentially externally appealable)? (3) Do you accept the application of your principles to other systems of law? If so, to what should law-abiders swear fealty in a monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc., and are you equally content with their oaths in such circumstances ("I was just obeying orders")? Or if not, what is the difference between American case law from the mouths of judges and "case law" from the mouth of whatever tribal chief is "in" that day? (4) Is there no ideal law, no ultimately noncontradictory principles to which one can appeal (for one's conscience's sake) when those principles are denied by American courts? Is there no right and wrong? If there isn't, why do you prefer lawfulness to unlawfulness? If there is, why doesn't it control your conscience like your oath to American case law does? You apparently avoid discussion of right and wrong, while valuing court "success" as if it's the right thing to learn.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy and Mr. Bulten:

I'll respond to both of your most recent posts here. First, Steve, it's good to see that you might be reading Sir Edward Coke. And Bulten, gee, I'm sorry you thought I was "waving" Black's Law Dictionary (Secondary Authority) around like I somehow thought it was case law (Primary Authority). We aren't allowed to use Secondary Authority in this thread? Oops, that would mean the non-judicial writings of Coke and Holmes would be off limits too.

Look, let's cut through all your latest futile attempts at formulating your own system of jurisprudence. I'm sorry, but the gross amount you receive in exchange for personal services you perform is, under the law, taxable to you -- and there's nothin' I can do about it, fellas. Nothin' you can do about it either. Except write your congressman and try to get the law changed. Yours, Famspear

[wserra]

I'm sorry, but the gross amount you receive in exchange for personal services you perform is, under the law, taxable to you -- and there's nothin' I can do about it, fellas. Nothin' you can do about it either. Except write your congressman and try to get the law changed. Yours, Famspear

Wow. It took the good Famspear about two weeks to get to the point most of the rest of us reached in two hours.

My sincere congratulations to you, sir, on your commendable tolerance and high threshold of pain.