Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Famspear wrote:
webhick wrote:
Famspear wrote: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.
:lol:

In the case of SkankBeat, I'm thinkin' that it must have been a small meal.
Kinda like eating a single corn flake.... :P
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Imalawman »

This highlight one of the fundamental flaws of Hendrickson and his followers (maybe TPs in general). They come up with a thesis and then seek to establish it. However, what they fail to consider is just how it has an impact on the taxation statutes in place today.

For instance, Petey liked his "includes" argument from a section dealing with withholding. However, what that he always failed to do was show how that had any impact on section 61 of the IRC. He spent all his time trying to prove a point that even if accepted would not have helped his ultimate goal of avoiding taxation of wages.

Same with Lucas. Even if we accept Petey's interpretation it has no bearing on the subsequent case law and current statutory law that clearly allows taxation of wages. Logic isn't really a TPs best attribute.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Gregg »

Well, Skankbeat is my favorite legal scholar, so just for that reason, I'm gonna lay out Hang'em High an answer here.

HeH, this, in quotes, is the ENTIRE DECISION of SCOTUS, all the rest of what you have been fed is arguments made by one side or the other for the court to consider, but what they DECIDED is this
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 [*114] 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, ß ß 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," ß 213 (a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat.
227, 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 [*115] 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.


Now, since y'all are so enthralled with the other stuff, I have emphasized one quote FROM THE ACTUAL DECISION ABOVE that I think you should pay a bit more attention to....
And Pete (and all the other de-tax gurus) do this all the time, the case went against the guy, the part I bolded was the important part of the decision, and yet Pete manages to find something, not even in the decision, twist it completely out of context/relevence/whatever and makes back into white. Do you know how sick it makes me to read you guys whine like little girls with a skinned knee about how the ebil guv'ment is trying to trip you up with "custom definitions", 'terms of art" and other language trips, and all the while you're arguing that the word "includes" means "excludes everything but"...jeesh, y'all are just stupid is all I can think.


And finally, let me tell you what Pete and his buddies are doing with the bogus quote that started all this...

Man shoots another man in cold blood, in front of 20 witnesses attending a convention of clerics, gets charged with murder, pleads not guilty.
In pre trial, his lawyer files a motion that says "My client, Mr Manson didn't do it and the 20 witnesses you have are lying scumbags, even if they are all priests"
Case goes to trial, turns out not only do the 20 priests say he did it, but a security camera taped it, a stuck answering machine recorded audio and some guy waiting on a bus had it up on Utube before the victim assumed room temperature, the jury takes 30 minutes to pick a foreman, order lunch, make coffe and convict on all counts.

Hendrickson is saying the
"Mr. Manson didn't do it ..."
was part of the verdict. And Pete would say it even after they put the guy in the chair and executed him. That 50,000 volts was just a technicality, but he WON the case.....hell, it's right there in the decision, the court said he didn't do it
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Prof
El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: East of the Pecos

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Prof »

As my mother would have said, those folks "would argue with a stop sign."

If you want to see a really silly argument, go over the SUI and review the arguments about attorneys and licenses:

http://www.suijurisclub.net/court/8835- ... hingy.html

After "mertensv16" posted a copy of a Texas license, which, incidentally, says that the holder
"duly admitted and licensed," the following exchange occurs:
REJOINDERKitchie

Re: No Attorney Has a License Thingy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mertensv16
For those who believe there's no such thing as a law license, here's a picture of one:

http://www.cevalloslaw.com/LawLicense.JPG

I am sorry mertensv16, I did not see on that picture where the state issued a license to practice law. Could you point out where that is? Thanks

Kitchie


REPLY mertensv16


Re: No Attorney Has a License Thingy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchie
I am sorry mertensv16, I did not see on that picture where the state issued a license to practice law. Could you point out where that is? Thanks

Kitchie

Look closely at the part that says, "is licensed as an Attorney and Counselor at Law to practice in all courts in the State of Texas".
__________________

mertensv16

OBSERVATION BY reenie


Re: No Attorney Has a License Thingy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchie
I am sorry mertensv16, I did not see on that picture where the state issued a license to practice law. Could you point out where that is? Thanks

Kitchie

It says "This is to certify"

Does that not mean that it is a certificate?

li·cense (lsns)
n.
1.
a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.
3. Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See Synonyms at freedom.
4.
a. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: "When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near" (Will Durant).
b. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness.
tr.v. li·censed, li·cens·ing, li·cens·es
1. To give or yield permission to or for.
2. To grant a license to or for; authorize. See Synonyms at authorize.

**********


cer·tif·i·cate (sr-tf-kt)
n.
1. A document testifying to the truth of something: a certificate of birth.
2. A document issued to a person completing a course of study not leading to a diploma.
3. A document certifying that a person may officially practice in certain professions.
4. A document certifying ownership.
tr.v. (-kt) cer·tif·i·cat·ed, cer·tif·i·cat·ing, cer·tif·i·cates
To furnish with, testify to, or authorize by a certificate.

******

There is a difference between:

a license = permit

and

a certificate = testifying the truth of something

I would think .....do you not agree?


reenie

ANOTHER OBSERVATION FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY wargames102


Re: No Attorney Has a License Thingy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am thinking that someone may have a fraudulent certificate.

Especially since there is no license but certifies that there is...??? hmmmm???
__________________
"My Health is Better in November."
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Famspear »

Gregg wrote:......And Pete (and all the other de-tax gurus) do this all the time, the case went against the guy, the part I bolded was the important part of the decision, and yet Pete manages to find something, not even in the decision, twist it completely out of context/relevence/whatever and makes back into white....
I recall that when wacko Weston White (a follower, or former follower, of Hendrickson) was posting here, Weston was nailed unmercifully on the same nonsense about the "quote" from Lucas v. Earl, which he also had falsely claimed was part of the Supreme Court opinion. (He had posted the fakery on one of his own web sites, along with some fake quotes for one or two other cases.) I seem to recall that after being caught with his pants down, Weston proceeded in much the same way. Weston, however, was pretty much a troll much of the time. It was sometimes difficult to determine how much of his ravings he really believed himself, versus which portions of his posts were simply quasi-adolescent attempts to be disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.

Some of the posts by Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist seem to take on some of this kind of attribute (for example, his weird pseudo-religious rantings, his almost psychotic postings about the Guardians of the Free Republics, his hilariously stupid prediction that Hendrickson was never going to be sentenced, and so on). Like Weston White, Harvester also tends to repeat phony arguments that have already been blasted away by Quatloos regulars, as though he has either forgotten what he has posted, or he has forgotten that we've already discredited him. The postings are so transparently lame, it's hard to tell whether Harvester really believes what he is writing, or has finally just realized that he has a mental problem, and that he has boxed himself into a corner. Maybe he just figures "what the heck, I've lost all credibility, I'm not making any sense, even to myself -- I might as well just write anything I like, and stir the pot."
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Famspear wrote:
Some of the posts by Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist seem to take on some of this kind of attribute (for example, his weird pseudo-religious rantings, his almost psychotic postings about the Guardians of the Free Republics, his hilariously stupid prediction that Hendrickson was never going to be sentenced, and so on). Like Weston White, Harvester also tends to repeat phony arguments that have already been blasted away by Quatloos regulars, as though he has either forgotten what he has posted, or he has forgotten that we've already discredited him. The postings are so transparently lame, it's hard to tell whether Harvester really believes what he is writing, or has finally just realized that he has a mental problem, and that he has boxed himself into a corner. Maybe he just figures "what the heck, I've lost all credibility, I'm not making any sense, even to myself -- I might as well just write anything I like, and stir the pot."
Harvester/Whatever is what I sometimes call a "Lexington Romantic". He pictures himself, on Lexington Green, musket in hand (and no doubt in full uniform, unlike any of the militiamen who were actually there), Standing Up To Tyranny. He also reminds me of some of the ultraleft idiots who drive more conventional lefties crazy with their romanticism and ideological rigidity, and who imagine themselves, driven by True Revolutionary Vanguard Fervor, storming the gates of imperialism, or whatever....
Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Famspear »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Harvester/Whatever is what I sometimes call a "Lexington Romantic". He pictures himself, on Lexington Green, musket in hand (and no doubt in full uniform, unlike any of the militiamen who were actually there), Standing Up To Tyranny. He also reminds me of some of the ultraleft idiots who drive more convential lefties crazy with their romanticism, and who imagine themselves, driven by True Revolutionary Vanguard Fervor, storming the gates of imperialism, or whatever....
"Lexington Romantic". I like that.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Gregg »

Not to be off topic, but having gone to school in England, I have to tell that there is a wholly different version of events surrounding the American Revolution that most Americans, and the patridiot community especially would have a lot of problems digesting. To the English, it was largely a spin off, side contest to a longer, ongoing war with France at least after they got involved. The early revolution was seen, with some justification mind you, as a bunch of ungrateful troublemakers unwilling to help pay the costs of the crown defending the colonies against the indians/french and was led by a bunch of criminals from Boston whose earlier run ins with the crown were mostly about smuggling.
Simon Shaama did an interesting take on it in "A History of Britain" that compares the long term effects of them losing the Americas and gaining India, and what the meaning would have been had that been reversed.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
The Dog
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: England

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by The Dog »

I suspect that the English schools' slant on the American Revolution is more a case of wanting to dwell on the bits that "we won". Thus, my school history lessons on the Hundred Years War covered Crecy and Agincourt in depth, then (apart from a brief mention of Jeanne d'Arc), the rest was silence.

On this reasoning, the American Revolution can be viewed as "Who cares about a few colonies, let's paint the map pink".
Omne
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:23 am

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Omne »

Gregg wrote:Not to be off topic, but having gone to school in England, I have to tell that there is a wholly different version of events surrounding the American Revolution that most Americans, and the patridiot community especially would have a lot of problems digesting.
One of my favorite books was "Redcoats & Rebels" by Chrisotpher Hibbert.
From Publishers Weekly:

British historian Hibbert's narrative of the War of Independence from the British and Loyalist viewpoint is lively, beautifully written and freshly informative. Tracing events from the colonists' unexpected outrage over the 1765 Stamp Act to the Treaty of Paris in 1783, he describes the bitter foreign policy debates in London and the escalating logistic difficulties of supporting a war in North America while conducting far-flung campaigns against the French and Spanish as well. In his evenhanded account of operations from Canada to the Carolinas, Hibbert analyzes British attempts to achieve a unified strategy against the rebels, and brings into focus the ideological confusion and political disunity that hampered the American cause throughout the eight-year struggle. The author lays more stress on French intervention in accounting for the ultimate American triumph than our historians are wont to do. He also points out that the 1781 battle of Coppens was one of the few times the Redcoats were tactically outwitted. Photos.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

This is only contributing to the topic diversion but IMHO what ultimately undid the British was time and distance.

The throne had utter reliance on the ultimate commander on the scene - one who was at best weeks if not months away in terms of communication and response of those prosecuting the war in the vastness of America at the time.

Don't forget the war actually went on for quite a while even after Cornwallis surrendered.

Military command communications were not conversations over the phone.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Weston White

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Weston White »

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.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by LPC »

Weston White wrote:NOTE: Now, from a legal standpoint, "hourly wage earners" are not “salaried” employees, there is a difference.
There may be a difference for some purposes (such as the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act), but not for income tax purposes. It doesn't make any difference whether you call it "wages" or "salaries," both are taxed in the same way.
Weston White wrote: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.
Wrong. There is no such thing as "taxable activities" for federal income tax purposes. There is nothing in the Constitution, nothing in the Internal Revenue Code, nothing in any regulation or ruling, and nothing in any court decision that makes the application of the federal income tax in any way dependent on the nature of the "activities" producing the income.

The fact that you continue to blather such nonsense demonstrates that you are an incorrigible idiot.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by . »

Yeah, but we always appreciate it when a delusional moron like Weston makes a special guest appearance.

Where else can one go to see blithering idiots go out of their way to embarrass themselves for free?
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Famspear »

I see that Weston has re-copied an example of one of his tactics: accusing his opponent of the very thing he was doing - in this case, not "coming clean." No, Weston, you posted the fakery, not I. And you were the one who took so long to come clean.

And no, I am not lying. People like you (and Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist) use these kinds of charges as rhetorical devices. You accuse the other party of "lying" for example, but you don't actually identify any supposed lie that the other party has told.

And I see you are still confusing me with Jay Adkisson, the creator of Quatloos.

8)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Famspear »

Oh, but I want to THANK YOU, Weston, for providing the link to Hendrickson's errata. You've just helped provide evidence that Hendrickson did indeed falsely attribute the quote to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - in his second errata posting.

Weston White, Harvester, SkankBeat, Pete Hendrickson. So much incompetence, so little understanding......

8)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Famspear »

Weston White wrote: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.
Correct, Weston! Good man! You've grasped something that few if any of the people at losthorizons have grasped!
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.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Courts can and do make substantive law, and yes it does matter what the court ruled. And no, I don't own a copy of the book.

Here's the link where Hendrickson erroneously attributes the material to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.losthorizons.com/SecondPrintingErrata.pdf
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 [......]
Yes, it has been thoroughly discussed already. No, the reason I bring it up again is that the dimwits at losthorizons brought it up again.
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.
Yet, when I originally pointed it out to you, it certainly took you a long time to come clean.
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’
No, that was done by tax protesters who (like SkankBeat at losthorizons) don't understand that the language printed above the court's opinion is not part of the court's opinion. But you people, you tax protester-tax denier types, are so full of yourselves, so self-righteous, so "patriotic", so sure that you are right, that you don't take the time to learn how to perform proper legal analysis.

You are arrogant. You know little or nothing about the things on which you pontificate, yet you presume to preach to people who do know something.

And we see the results.

8)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Gregg »

. wrote:Yeah, but we always appreciate it when a delusional moron like Weston makes a special guest appearance.

Where else can one go to see blithering idiots go out of their way to embarrass themselves for free?
Two words:

Reality Televison
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Weston White wrote: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.).
This textual argument is really silly. If compensation isn't income and only the income derived from compensation is, then by the same token dividends, rents, and interest aren't income either; only the income derived from them is.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Hendrickson's Heroes struggle with Lucas v. Earl

Post by LPC »

Famspear wrote:And no, I am not lying. People like you (and Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist) use these kinds of charges as rhetorical devices. You accuse the other party of "lying" for example, but you don't actually identify any supposed lie that the other party has told.
Ditto charges of "fraud," "deprivation of due process," "violations of civil rights," "treason" and other charges that get thrown around on Lost Horizons and other tax denial forums. It's so easy to throw out conclusions pretending to be facts, particularly when no one ever asks for particulars.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.