I am sorry, I will not be standing by, while a publicly known lying-barbaric-huckster Fampire (AKA: Jay Adkisson) publishes lies about me (with that being said, I will not debate about this matter any further, this single post will suffice).
Now for a factual viewpoint see:
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 385#p65385
Me on Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm at Quatlossia:
“Look fella, you did not come clean until SteveSy posted the court case documents, until then you played the high-horse dumbass, which apparently you are highly trained in. I am not going to discuss this Lucas v. Earl matter with you any further, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed, end of story. When I get a chance I will remove the quote form my webpage, it is history. See if you would have just come clean months ago, rather than posting your rhetoric and name calling, this could have been rather easily solved, but no you left it to me to do on my own... and this is your hobby and you are here to help. BTW, for your own future reference, posting your unsourced information, holds no water as far as I am concerned. I will never take you at your word, or Captain Banjo, or however.
My focus this last month has become direct taxation vs. indirect taxation and how it relates to people and the philosophy of it all. That is it, I really do not give a crap about 26 USC or anything else at this point. I have studied the Code enough that I can find my way around it fairly quickly and reference materials. Now it is time to move on to the next step and for me that is the aforementioned issues.
So with that back on topic, I say!”
And me on Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:24 pm also at Quatlossia:
“Yes, about that webpage you make such a big deal over all the time, that pokes fun at how your favorite website Quatloos, can't even quote the U.S. Constitution correctly (and is still to date it is incorrect), is a work in progress and no I have not checked into all the cases cited, though I am working on it, slowly but surely. At the time I was making it I was going off of quotes I have compiled from other sites I have visited, sure there are things that need to be corrected. Though I am but one person and can only do so much. Though you have yet to prove that that quote is not otherwise from SCOTUS, so you know whatever you have to say about it nothing but your opinion... especially since now that SteveSy has posted documents from the case, where that quote is in fact included in the Certiorari and just as always has been claimed... go figure. I guess you are like Tom Cruise, meaning that you obviously can't handle the truth!
lol, incompetent? It is not exactly like I get paid to do this, who are you trying to fool? I have limited means in researching and am learning as I go. Though I can honestly say that I am learning and that is all that really matters in the end.”
And the Webpage in question (that case long since removed – however, this page is still in progress, as long ago, I was hoping for more assistance from LHers, but as usual nobody there seems to be really interested in core researching, only in primarily pilfering conspiracy theory):
http://defendindependence.org/scotuscases.html
Also see related page (as well still in the works):
http://defendindependence.org/SCROLL/SCROLL.html
Now Famspire is still, what, a year later, misrepresenting this case, disregarding the actual frame of the issues pertaining to the case; that is to say, its points in debate.
1. The Earl case actually has much more to do with, that is, that it has more bearing upon, contractual law than with taxes i.e., form vs. substance. As well there are the primary issues established within this case of "assignment-of-income", tax avoidance, or tax-sheltering through contracts or trusts to consider (though the case does not seem to bother addressing these aspects either, though again, that would most likely be attributed to the framing of the case, as it is the matters complained within the pleadings and nothing more that sits before the Court).
2. Mr. Earl nor his wife appear to have been laboring in a menial capacity, they in fact seem to have acquired well above average assets and wealth during their time.
3. The case did not actually even debate issues pertaining to taxation, only if their (privately) contracted arrangements took precedence over whatever taxable obligations, through the ownership or transference of property or a percentage of such property: “as income from personal services, consisting of salaries, fees, etc., as well as the income from property”. The application or legitimacy of the income tax does not seem to have been discussed (at least to any ample degree) by the justices in their decision.
4. That the Earl family had: “accumulated considerable property, consisting of cash, bonds, lands and other property”.
5. “The petitioner's salary as an officer of the Great Western Power Co. and fees received as an attorney”.
6. “[R]espectively, as salary, fees, etc., were taxable to the petitioner”.
NOTE: Now, from a legal standpoint, "hourly wage earners" are not “salaried” employees, there is a difference. As well, only business professionals earn salaries and fees and only businesses, self-employed, contractors, etc., provide "services". Ergo, Mr. Earl was an officer of a corporation, was an attorney, and we know that he at least owned bonds, respectively, each of those are correctly taxable activities for the purposes federal income tax. For more on this issue please view:
http://ctcwarrior.us/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=589#p589
7. Sec. 213: 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,'.
NOTE: This statute, clearly does not state that salaries, wages, or compensation are income. It does state, however, that income emanates therefrom (and as of the Sec. 61 revision, “salaries and wages” have been omitted, so even if they were meant to be taxable, it could be intriguingly argued, that is no longer the intention due to the later revision.).
Fampire wrote: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."
I find it fascinating that even after years, and years of study and practice on your part you still fail to grasp that in the end, it really, truly, and simply just does not matter if the court said this or not, for the ominous fact that this is what the statute itself states (courts cannot make
substantive law), Fampire, ya' dink! But, yes, clearly you do own a copy of CtC after all, for you even know the chapter name of the quote.
However, you can of course view the information about this here (that is to say, “the mystery language”):
http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/#nine
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximag ... svearl.pdf
http://www.losthorizons.com/SecondPrintingErrata.pdf
http://www.losthorizons.com/FirstPrintingErrata.pdf
Also see:
viewtopic.php?p=65312#p65312
This topic has already been thoroughly discussed (included infra). The fact that Fampire is again bringing it up, shows, (1) the dishonesty of all that is Fampire and his Quatlost crew, (2) Fampire has a very, very short intention span, and (3) that Fampire and trailing Quastlost crew are interested in nothing more than perpetually spewing their misconceptions and lies ad nauseam. As to your name calling, enjoy, at least I can quote the XVI Amendment correctly, unlike you morans, most certainly the authors of IRS Pub. 2105.
Original thread on this subject:
viewtopic.php?p=65268#p65268
Continuation thread on this subject:
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4203
In closing, this issue with the quoting of the Earl case is not “fakery” or “lying” or “dishonesty” or “incompetence” or anything else similar, it is a misquote due to a layman misunderstanding nothing more. In fact, I am willing to wage, that somebody, most likely an IRS doofus or other such operative was originally responsible for initiating the spread of this dis-info-quote throughout the Net’ (in fact it would be interesting to learn where this quote first derived from, for I bet it comes right back to some government ran/funded Website) so that deplorable and despicable subjects such as you, in your petty acts of desperation and ignorance would have something to rest your hat upon… as you so desperately grasp at another’s misunderstanding or blunder with crimped straws. And the Quatlost, ever faithfully following that long broken trail toward the misguided and illogical premise of “see you were wrong about this (very small, minute, and insignificant) matter, so that means you are wrong about everything else to”. laff
P.S. As far as what I believe and what my views on taxation are, they can be conveniently viewed here:
http://defendindependence.org/CategoricalTaxation.html, thank you very much.