Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

[Famspear]

Hendrickson's Heroes at losthorizons.com have begun a new thread on an old subject -- the verbiage that is often falsely presented as being part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Earl.

Here's the thread:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2527

One of the posters, "Hang'Em High", offers this quote from an old Quatloos thread by none other than yours truly:

the crucial point is that the language you have quoted is not from the Court’s opinion in Lucas v. Earl.

The language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the Respondent's brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan.

In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the Respondent’s brief are re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself. In the case reprints that include this excerpt (and many of them don't even show it), the excerpt is not clearly identified as being from the brief, so a non-lawyer (and just about any follower of Pete Hendrickson) could easily miss the point that this verbiage is not part of the Court’s opinion.

EARTH CALLING LOSTHORIZONS: The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected the argument you quoted. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case. The Court ruled that Mr. Earl's income was taxable to him

Even with this answer right in front of them, some of the Crackheads are having a hard time.

Earth to Hendrickson's Heroes...... Yes, the verbiage is from Mr. Earl's losing brief. Yes, the Court rejected Mr. Earl's arguments. Yes, Mr. Earl lost the case. Yes, a copy of Mr. Earl's brief is available on the internet (or, at least it was when I wrote the expose above). See if you can find it, kids.

To answer a question by one of the posters in the losthorizons thread: No, it's not proper to cite the verbiage as being the decision of the Supreme Court; it is not the decision of the Supreme Court. Of course, that little detail doesn't stop some people, including some present or former Crackheads (like Weston White, who like many tax protesters falsely attributed the verbiage to the Supreme Court itself).

[Famspear]

Note: User Hang'Em High is struggling with the idea that Pete Hendrickson is again mistaken. Hang'EmHigh quotes Hendrickson as stating that the verbiage is from the LOWER COURT OPINION in the case. And of course, Pete is wrong as usual.

There are three opinions in the case. The first is from the trial court - the Board of Tax Appeals (forerunner to today's United States Tax Court). The Board of Tax Appeals ruled in favor of the Commissioner, Mr. Lucas.

The second opinion is from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Appeals Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, Mr. Earl (reversing the Board of Tax Appeals).

The third opinion is of course the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the Commissioner, Mr. Lucas.

Here is the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals:

GUY C. EARL, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT, 10 B.T.A. 723 (Feb. 14, 1928)

[Board of Tax Appeals]

[CCH Dec. 3555]

Docket No. 7873, Promulgated February 14, 1928

H. H. Tooley, Esq., for the petitioner.
M. E. McDowell, Esq., for the respondent.

This is a proceeding for the redetermination of deficiencies in income tax for the calendar years 1920 and 1921, in the amounts of $2,420.12 and $2,432.46, respectively. The deficiencies arise on account of the action of the respondent in including in the taxable income of the petitioner the entire amount received by him during the years involved from salaries, fees, etc.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

The petitioner is a resident of California. On June 1, 1901, he entered into a contract in writing with his wife, Ella F. Earl, as follows:

It is agreed and understood between us that any property either of us now has or may hereafter receive or acquire (of any and every kind) in any way, either by earnings (including salaries, fees, etc.) or any rights by contract or otherwise during the existence of our marriage, or which we or either of us may receive by gift, bequest, devise or inheritance, and all the proceeds, issues and profits of any and all such property shall be treated and considered and hereby is declared to be received, held, taken and owned by us as joint tenants and not otherwise with the right of survivorship.

(Signed) GUY C. EARL

ELLA F. EARL.

The above agreement has been in effect since the date thereof, and all amounts received by the petitioner as income from personal services, consisting of salaries, fees, etc., as well as the income from property, have been deposited in a joint bank account.

The petitioner and the said Ella F. Earl were married in 1888. In 1901 the petitioner had accumulated considerable property, consisting of cash, bonds, lands and other property. The petitioner's wife had about $30,000 worth of property when they entered into the agreement above set out. At the time the petitioner was not very well and suggested to his wife that it might be wise for them to enter into such an agreement, which would simplify affairs in case he died during her lifetime, and that "it would take care of her and leave the matter for her administration."

At approximately the same time the contract was entered into the joint bank accounts were made.

The petitioner's salary as an officer of the Great Western Power Co. and fees received as an attorney were deposited in these joint accounts immediately upon receipt thereof. Mrs. Earl has at all times had the right to draw against the accounts at will.

In the year 1920 the petitioner received as salary, fees, etc., the sum of $24,839.00, and in the year 1921 he received from the same sources $22,946.20.

The petitioner included only one-half of the above amounts as being his
taxable income in his income-tax returns for the years involved. The respondent determined that the entire amount of such income was taxable to the petitioner and that no part thereof was taxable to the wife.

TRAMMELL:

OPINION.

In determining the deficiencies here involved the respondent gave effect to the agreement set out in the findings of fact in so far as income from property was concerned, holding that one-half of the amounts received from such sources was taxable to the petitioner's wife, but held that the entire amounts of $24,839 and $22,946.20 received in 1920 and 1921, respectively, as salary, fees, etc., were taxable to the petitioner.

It was contended, in view of the contract entered into in 1901, that one-half of the above amounts should be taxable to the petitioner's wife upon the ground that it became her income upon its receipt by the petitioner.

The petitioner in his brief cites many cases to the effect that husband and wife may by contract change the character of their property from community to separate property. That is, the husband and wife may enter into an agreement that the earnings of the wife may be her separate property. Authorities are also cited to the effect that under the California law a contract such as set out above constituted an equitable assignment of future earnings.

We have no disagreement with the authorities cited by the petitioner. It may be conceded that under the law of California the petitioner's wife had a right under the contract to receive one-half of her husband's earnings, but this was at most an assignment of a portion of the petitioner's earnings. As between the parties the contract may be perfectly legal and enforceable. He might have been compelled to turn over to his wife one-half of the earnings, but the salary and fees involved here first became his earnings. In the case of Blair v. Roth, decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (not yet reported), the court held that an agreement such as this did not have the effect of preventing the earnings from becoming community property. The earnings are taxable to the petitioner when received. United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315.

In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that the amounts received by the petitioner as salary, fees, etc., should be taxable to him.

Reviewed by the Board.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

MILLIKEN concurs in the result.

End of text of decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.

[Famspear]

Now, here is the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:

EARL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 5602.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 25, 1929.

[Earl v. Commissioner, 30 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1929)]

Warren Olney, Jr., J. M. Mannon, Jr., Henry D. Costigan, and Robert L. Lipman, all of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Millar E. McGilchrist, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, and Prew Savoy, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.

Before RUDKIN and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges, and BEAN, District Judge.

BEAN, District Judge.

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. Section 1001, Revenue Act of 1926; 26 USCA § 1224. The petitioner is, and was during the times hereinafter mentioned, a married man domiciled in the state of California. In 1920 and 1921, the years here involved, he earned for personal services the sums of $24,839.00 and $22,946.20. He and his wife made separate income tax returns for the years stated, each returning one-half of the above amounts. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the entire amount of the petitioner's earnings was taxable to him, and no part to his wife, and as a result determined that there was a deficiency in the tax paid by the petitioner in the sums of $2,420.12 for 1912, and $2,432.46 for 1921. From this decision the petitioner appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals, where the ruling of the Commissioner was sustained.

There is no dispute as to the facts. On the 1st day of June, 1901, the petitioner and his wife entered into a contract in writing as follows: "It is agreed and understood between us that any property either of us now has or may hereafter acquire (of any and every kind) in any way, either by earnings (including salaries, fees, etc.), or any rights by contract or otherwise, during the existence of our marriage, or which we or either of us may receive by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance, and all the proceeds, issues and profits of any and all such property shall be treated and considered, and hereby is declared to be received, held, taken and owned by us as joint tenants, and not otherwise, with the right of survivorship."
This agreement has been continuously lived up to by the petitioner and his wife throughout the years, and at the time it was made a bank account was opened in their joint names and subject to the check of either, and in this account all incomes, including earnings of the petitioner, have been deposited immediately upon their receipt. It was by reason of these facts that separate income tax returns were made by the petitioner and his wife.

The question for decision is whether the contract referred to is a valid and binding obligation, and such as a husband and wife may legally make, and, if so, whether under its provisions the personal earnings of the petitioner immediately became the joint property of himself and wife as soon as 899 earned, or was there an interval before the title passed to their joint estate during which time such earnings were impressed with the community property status, and returnable by and taxable to him, under U. S. v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 46 S. Ct. 148, 70 L. Ed. 285.

Sections 162, 163, and 164 of the Civil Code of California provide that all property owned by either spouse before marriage or thereafter acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, with the rentals, issues, and profits thereof, is separate property, and all other property acquired after marriage by either spouse belongs to them as community property, but by the same law a husband and wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other respecting property which either might if unmarried (section 158), and they may hold property as joint tenants, tenants in common, or as community property (section 161). It is consequently the holding of the Supreme Court of California that an agreement between a husband and wife domiciled there, without any other consideration than their mutual consent, that the future earnings of the wife should be her separate property, is valid, and such earnings do not become community property. Wren v. Wren, 100 Cal. 276, 34 P. 775, 38 Am. St. Rep. 287; Cullen v. Bisbee, 168 Cal. 695, 144 P. 968; Kaltschmidt v. Weber, 145 Cal. 596, 79 P. 272. If, as thus seems to be the settled law of the state, and which is recognized as such by the Board of Tax Appeals (Krull v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 10 B. T. A. 1096), a husband and wife may legally agree by contract that the future earnings of the wife shall be her separate property, and by virtue of such agreement they do not become the property of the community, there is no sufficient reason why they may not make a similar agreement with reference to the earnings of the husband, or, as here, that their joint earnings shall belong to them jointly and not otherwise.

Under the California system there is no difference between the earnings of the wife and the earnings of the husband. They are each community property (Martin v. Southern Pacific, 130 Cal. 285, 62 P. 515), and an agreement of husband and wife that her future earnings may nevertheless be her separate property differs in no way in principle from an agreement that his earnings may be the joint property of both (Estate of Harris, 169 Cal. 725, 147 P. 967). We conclude, therefore, that the contract is valid and such as a husband and wife may legally make.

The remaining question is its proper construction. The petitioner claims that by its terms his personal earnings become the joint property of himself and wife immediately upon being earned, while the position of the government is that, notwithstanding the language of the contract, there was an interval of time during which his earnings belonged to the community and were taxable as such. We are unable to agree with this latter view. The language of the contract is that the earnings, including salaries, fees, etc., of either spouse, shall be treated and considered and "is hereby declared to be received, held, taken, and owned" by them as joint tenants and not otherwise.

This clearly indicates an intention that the earnings of either spouse shall not be received and held by the community, but by them as joint tenants. The Board of Tax Appeals and the government seem to rely principally on the decision of this court in Blair v. Roth, 22 F.(2d) 932. In that case, the contract, as construed by the court, amounted to nothing more than an agreement between a husband and wife that they would contribute their earnings to a common fund, out of which their personal and community expenses would be paid, and the savings, if any, would be owned by them jointly. There was no agreement, as here, that the earnings of either spouse should be received, and held and owned, as the joint property of both, but merely that each would contribute his or her earnings to a common fund. It is evident that the parties here did not have in mind that the future earnings of either should first be received by him or her, and then turned over to a joint tenancy, but the intention clearly expressed is that the earnings should be received, taken, and held from the very beginning as the joint property of both.

Decree of Board of Tax Appeals reversed.

End of decision of Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

[Famspear]

Now, the opinion of the United States Supreme Court:

Lucas, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Earl

[281 U.S. 111 (1930)]
No. 99.

Argued March 3, 1930.
Decided March 17, 1930.

The Attorney General and Mr. Charles E. Hughes, Jr., Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Warren Olney, Jr., of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

[Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)]

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the respondent, Earl, could be taxed for the whole of the salary and attorney's fees earned by him in the years 1920 and 1921, or should be taxed for only a half of them in view of a contract with his wife which we shall mention. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Board of Tax Appeals imposed a tax upon the whole, but their decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 30 F.(2d) 898. A writ of certiorari was granted by this court.

By the contract, made in 1901, Earl and his wife agreed 'that any property either of us now has or may hereafter acquire ... in any way, either by earnings (including salaries, fees, etc.), or any rights by contract or otherwise, during the existence of our marriage, or which we or either of us may receive by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance, and all the proceeds, issues, and profits of any and all such property shall be treated and considered, and hereby is declared to be received, held, taken, and owned by us as joint tenants, and not otherwise, with the right of survivorship.' The validity of the contract is not questioned, and we assume it to be unquestionable under the law of the State of California, in which the parties lived. Nevertheless we are of opinion that the Commissioner and Board of Tax Appeals were right.

The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above. A very forcible argument is presented to the effect that the statute seeks to tax only income beneficially received, and that taking the question more technically the salary and fees became the joint property of Earl and his wife on the very first instant on which they were received. We well might hesitate upon the latter proposition, because however the matter might stand between husband and wife he was the only party to the contracts by which the salary and fees were earned, and it is somewhat hard to say that the last step in the performance of those contracts could be taken by anyone but himself alone. But this case is not to be decided by attenuated subtleties. It turns on the import and reasonable construction of the taxing act. There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it. That seems to us the import of the statute before us and we think that no distinction can be taken according to the motives leading to the arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.

Judgment reversed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in this case.

That's it. Short and sweet.

[Famspear]

Now, here is the "mystery" language:

It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.

Again, the losthorizontals are concerned because they say that Pete attributes this language to "the lower court ruling."

They have a right to be concerned. If Pete said that, then Pete is wrong (as usual).

Again, this is language from Mr. Earl's brief before the Supreme Court. In some reprints of the case itself, this verbiage was reprinted ABOVE the actual text of the Supreme Court decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes -- WITHOUT CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE. Someone like Hendrickson, who is clueless about legal analysis, could not possibly know the true source (which is why so many tax protesters like Pete repeat this mistake about Lucas v. Earl).

Most tax protesters just copy and past the fake urban legend that the language is by the Supreme Court. Pete at least has a little creativity. He may have, at some point, realized that the language was not by the Supreme Court, and didn't want to get called on it (I don't know).

I need to check later to see if Hang'EmHigh is right about Pete Hendrickson saying that the quote was from the "lower court ruling."

[grixit]

Hendrickson's Heroes at losthorizons.com have begun a new thread on an old subject -- the verbiage that is often falsely presented as being part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Earl.

Here's the thread:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2527

One of the posters, "Hang'Em High", offers this quote from an old Quatloos thread by none other than yours truly:

the the crucial point is that the language you have quoted is not from the Court’s opinion in Lucas v. Earl.

The language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the Respondent's brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan.

In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the Respondent’s brief are re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself. In the case reprints that include this excerpt (and many of them don't even show it), the excerpt is not clearly identified as being from the brief, so a non-lawyer (and just about any follower of Pete Hendrickson) could easily miss the point that this verbiage is not part of the Court’s opinion.

EARTH CALLING LOSTHORIZONS: The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected the argument you quoted. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case. The Court ruled that Mr. Earl's income was taxable to him

Even with this answer right in front of them, some of the Crackheads are having a hard time.

Earth to Hendrickson's Heroes...... Yes, the verbiage is from Mr. Earl's losing brief. Yes, the Court rejected Mr. Earl's arguments. Yes, Mr. Earl lost the case. Yes, a copy of Mr. Earl's brief is available on the internet (or, at least it was when I wrote the expose above). See if you can find it, kids.

To answer a question by one of the posters in the losthorizons thread: No, it's not proper to cite the verbiage as being the decision of the Supreme Court; it is not the decision of the Supreme Court. Of course, that little detail doesn't stop some people, including some present or former Crackheads (like Weston White, who like many tax protesters falsely attributed the verbiage to the Supreme Court itself).

Heh. Imagine a lazy high school student doing a report on Custer's Last Stand. They find an article in a book that starts with Custer declaring that a direct assault would achieve total victory. So that student, disdaining to read any further, writes in their report that Custer launched a direct assault and achieved total victory. Then they spend years afterward complaining that the teacher gave them an F in spite of their quoting from actual history.

[Famspear]

Heh. Imagine a lazy high school student doing a report on Custer's Last Stand. They find an article in a book that starts with Custer declaring that a direct assault would achieve total victory. So that student, disdaining to read any further, writes in their report that Custer launched a direct assault and achieved total victory. Then they spend years afterward complaining that the teacher gave them an F in spite of their quoting from actual history.

Excellent analogy. That's exactly what tax protesters have been doing with this case for years.

[Famspear]

The alleged Hendrickson reference to the verbiage as being from the lower court is supposedly found in the Cracking the Code chapter on The Origin of the Income Tax. I don't have the book itself.

Does anyone here at Quatloos have a copy of the book itself, to check and see whether Hendrickson actually claimed that the quote was from the lower court?

[Harvester]

The Court ruled that Mr. Earl's income was taxable to him

No surprise there, all income under the Revenue Acts is taxable. Fortunately for me, my paycheck is all lawful money and no income.

You know, arguing with yourself is considered a sign of poor mental health, LarryBoi.

IT'S A HUGE A SCAM

[Famspear]

The Court ruled that Mr. Earl's income was taxable to him

No surprise there, all income under the Revenue Acts is taxable. Fortunately for me, my paycheck is all lawful money and no income.

You know, arguing with yourself is considered a sign of poor mental health, LarryBoi.

The only person who is arguing with me at the moment is you.

And you are in no position to be lecturing us on poor mental health, pal.

You're also in no position to be lecturing us on whether your paycheck is income or not. It's income, and it's taxable to you.

Another disturbing thing for the Crackheads -- except that it might not even occur to the Crackheads -- is that here we have, in Lucas v. Earl, yet another example of someone who went all the way to the United States Supreme Court with private sector earnings that were not connected to a "federal privilege," and yet the Supreme Court ruled those earnings to be taxable. And at the Board of Tax Appeals, at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and at the Supreme Court, NO ONE EVER THOUGHT to try to argue that private sector earnings were not "income." Peter Hendrickson and other tax protester liars try to argue that private sector earnings weren't taxed back in the 1920s and 1930s, yet THERE IS NO RECORD OF EVEN A SINGLE CASE where any taxpayer with private sector earnings even THOUGHT about arguing such a stupid theory. Even with the tax lawyers representing taxpayers after 1913, in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, there is NO RECORD AT ALL of anyone coming up with anything close to a Cracking the Code type of "private sector" argument in those decades. None.

Yet Hendrickson and his Clueless Crackheads would have everyone swallow the stupid theory.

Hey Harvester, why didn't regular working folks back in the 1920s and 1930s argue that there non-federally privileged earnings were not "income" or "wages" or however Petey wants to word the argument? How come we have case after court case where private sector earnings were ruled taxable, and nobody ever even thought to raise Pete's crazy arguments about the meanings of words like "income" and "wage" and "employer" and "employee"?

[Famspear]

Hey Harvester/Nationwide, do you have the guts to go over to the losthorizons thread and suggest to your fellow dimwits that they read this Quatloos thread?

Here's the thread of the current discussion at losthorizons:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... b898#24644

If you do, you'll have to be careful not to make it appear that you're questioning the PontificatingPrisonBoundPeterMeister.

The other thing: Since you repeatedly harp about people who haven't read Cracking the Code, why don't you enlighten everyone? Does Pete indeed claim that the verbiage quoted is actually from the lower court opinion? Did Pete actually claim that in his book?

Just be careful how you post over there. We wouldn't want to see you get banned.

[Famspear]

Here's a post by Hang'EmHigh, responding to a post by SkankBeat:

SkankBeat, I'd be happy to look at it [the decision in Earl v. Commissioner at the Board of Tax Appeals], but I can't find it. Are you saying that you have read the USBTA [U.S. Board of Tax Appeals] ruling and the excerpted language is in that decision? Or are you simply guessing that it must be there?

Yawwwnn..... Don't you guys read the Quatloos forum any more?

If you have found and read it, could you please tell me where I can read this decision? I do not know how to find it. I'm sure you are trying to help, but I can't find the decision so if you have already found it and read it then it would be very helpful if you could point me to it.

It still seems very unlikely to me that the USBTA, which ruled against Earl in the first place, was the original source of the quotation that distinguished between salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services and the gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services, but I'd be happy to be shown otherwise.

Uh, oh, Hang'Em - are you questioning the omnipotence of Peter Eric Hendrickson, the Fabulous Felon, the HaughtyHero?

And still not addressed by anyone is what significance, if any, the quotation would retain, even if it were found in the Board of Tax Appeals ruling, after two higher courts have issued their decisions, while neither one seems to have included the language as part of their decision.

Hang'EmHigh, bite your tongue! Are you trying to get yourself banned???!!!??

[Famspear]

Now, hilariously, SkankBeat has simply re-copied a version of the Supreme Court case with the verbiage at the top. He now repeats the mistake of falsely claiming that the language from Earl's brief is part of the Supreme Court decision.

SkankBeat you are an idiot.



Can't you read?



Look at what you posted, SkankBeat. The opinion of the Supreme Court begins with the phrase "MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court." Everything above that line is NOT PART OF THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT OPINION.

You, SkankBeat, are no better than Hendrickson at performing legal analysis.

Now, READ THE ACTUAL BRIEF BY MR. EARL. LOOK AT THE ACTUAL PDF COPY OF THE BRIEF, AND LOOK AT THE TEXT ON THE PAGE NUMBERS I REFERENCED.

If you don't know where to find the brief on the internet, then ask for help, SkankBeat.

[Famspear]

Ironically, SkankBeat even provides a link to the very website where the brief is found -- the website of the University of Cincinnati Law School.

This is a classic example of how idiots like Hendrickson -- and SkankBeat and Harvester -- can't get the right answer when it is right there in front of them.

YOU PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ LEGAL MATERIALS, SKANKBEAT!



Here's the page containing the links to the brief by Mr. Earl:

http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/#nine

[Famspear]

Now, Hang'EmHigh slaps SkankBeat across the face (metaphorically) with a wake up call:

SkankBeat, first you said it was part of a lower court ruling, and now you say it's in the S.C. decision, when it seems clear that it is not.

Yes, the language appears at the link you provided, but I don't think the portion it appears in is part of the actual Supreme Court decision. Your link is essentially the same as the link at losthorizons.com which I included in my first post, and which also contains the language, but the decision doesn't begin until "MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court". The decision is the part that follows. I don't think major sites like FindLaw and Justia are "editing" out portions of Supreme Court decisions, especially when it says "full text". The language is not part of the actual decision.

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2527

At least Hang'EmHigh has figured this part out. Let's see whether the light bulb ever comes on for SkankBeat!

Hang'EmHigh continues:

What I am trying to discover is precisely what this language is from. The quatloos guy says it is from a brief filed by Earl's attorneys in response to, I guess, the governments petition to the S.C., and it is looking like he is correct unless someone can show where it actually comes from.

With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you really read my original posts (not carefully anyway) on the subject, but at least you are responding. Anybody else want to give their input?

What say you MCP2012? You must have some insights into this with your formal legal background. If you are currently assisting Pete with his appeal then that is first priority, but if you get a chance it would be nice if you could explain this to us (or at least me).

MCP2012 is, I believe, the character from the Dallas-Fort Worth area who, although not licensed as an attorney, claims to have a law degree.

[Famspear]

It's past my bedtime.

In recognition of the (relative) astuteness of losthorizons poster "Hang'EmHigh" as well as the cluelessness of "SkankBeat," I hereby provide the link to the answer (the Respondent's Brief, filed by the attorneys for the taxpayer, Mr. Earl), as reproduced at the University of Cincinnati Law School web site:

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

Look at the texts on the pages I referenced in the original post (quoted by Hang'EmHigh). There you will see the texts by Mr. Earl's attorneys, which are either quoted or paraphrased and re-printed ABOVE the text of the opinion of the Supreme Court, just as I said (and as Hang'EmHigh correctly noted).

[LPC]

At least Hang'EmHigh has figured this part out. Let's see whether the light bulb ever comes on for SkankBeat!

The important word being "ever," because Hang 'Em High has explained it to Skankbeat, and Skankbeat still doesn't get it:

Hang'Em High, It looks like your "Quatloos" FindLaw and Justia versions have missing pages. Note how the pages are suppose to go from 111-115. In the FindLaw version, it simply lists one sentence from page 111, then jumps to page 113, most of page 111 and 112 are missing. In the Justia version, it just starts on page 113- twice- and does not acknowledge that there is even a page 111 or 112. Coincidentally, these missing pages contain the relevant excerpt, as shown in the complete decision i provided. Hmmmmm. It seems apparent that these sources cannot be trusted regarding this supreme court case. If you feel missing pages equates to truth, then i am unable to help you further.

This is a 1930 supreme court decision, and fortunately these old cases have been printed, before the age of digital, and so any revisionism can be checked by simply looking up the case. If you are writing a legal brief as you say, and you want to use this case, then go to the law library and look up this case in the old books and verify what it says. When you do, please tell the forum what pages 111 and 112 say! Thank you!

We may be setting some sort of record for obtuseness.

[Famspear]

Losthorizons poster SkankBeat is yet another example of the horrible ravages of the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, when it strikes. We must find a vaccine for those who have not contracted this, and we must find a cure for those unfortunate souls like SkankBeat, for whom the administration of a vaccine would be, sadly, too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~ehrlinger/Self_ ... r&Krug.pdf

[webhick]

we must find a cure for those unfortunate souls like SkankBeat, for whom the administration of a vaccine would be, sadly, too late.

Once you've eaten your own brain, there really isn't any going back.

[Famspear]

we must find a cure for those unfortunate souls like SkankBeat, for whom the administration of a vaccine would be, sadly, too late.

Once you've eaten your own brain, there really isn't any going back.

In the case of SkankBeat, I'm thinkin' that it must have been a small meal.