"free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

[Dr. Caligari]

Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.

Name one.

[Pottapaug1938]

Haha, lengthy double post, that's more like it. Fammie, you know I love to rattle your cage, sending you back to your archives to dig up those select few quotes which appear to support your side. Thanks for playing!

Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.

The 16th Amendment closed a small loophole but created no new power of taxation, no new classification of tax, nor did it remove the apportionment requirement from direct taxation on activities of common-right. The Supreme Court is clear here. And once again, y'all seem to think income is all that comes in when in reality its only gains/profits derived from excisable activity or property as described in the Revenue Acts of Congress.

Oh Pouttie, you may get a kick outta this non-mainstream item, although he should invest in a new keyboard, his 'M' key appears to be stuck! ....

COWARD. ONCE AGAIN, YOU EVADE OUR CHALLENGES. NAME THESE MYSTERY DECISIONS, NUMBSKULL -- AND GIVE US THE HOLDING IN EACH CASE, NOT SOME OUT-OF-CONTEXT DICTA.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=172649

[The Operative]

Haha, lengthy double post, that's more like it. Fammie, you know I love to rattle your cage, sending you back to your archives to dig up those select few quotes which appear to support your side. Thanks for playing!

Famspear doesn't have to look in any archive. I am fairly certain he is at least familiar with a few OUT OF THE MANY court decisions that show you are wrong. While Famspear has only presented a few so far, you HAVE NOT PRESENTED A SINGLE CASE that actually supports your side.

Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.

Name one. Provide a citation.

The 16th Amendment closed a small loophole but created no new power of taxation, no new classification of tax, nor did it remove the apportionment requirement from direct taxation on activities of common-right.

As usual, you do not understand what the Supreme Court said. Here is the quote from Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.

What the emphasized portion of the quote above means is that income taxes are indirect taxes in a Constitutional sense and always have been.

The Supreme Court is clear here.

Clear to everyone but you.

And once again, y'all seem to think income is all that comes in when in reality its only gains/profits derived from excisable activity or property as described in the Revenue Acts of Congress.

As usual, you misconstrue what people have said. No one here is claiming that income is everything that comes in. In fact, in another thread, I made the following post which you have chosen to ignore...

Correct; it's a definition of 'gross income' not 'income.' But it's obfuscatory and not helpful. That definition is crafted, with the hope that the casual reader thinks he's also getting a definition of 'income.' Or that the common use definition of income is at play.

Which is exactly what is happening...the common meaning of the word 'income' is being used. The Supreme Court has stated, "In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the “ ‘ordinary, everyday senses’ ” of the words. - Commissioner v. Soliman 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1992) quoting Malat v. Riddell, 383 U. S. 569, 571 (1966)

However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that "...'income,' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income.'"

The 'ordinary, everyday sense' of the word income does not mean everything that comes in either. While the statute or the IRC "does not define "income," the courts have interpreted the term in its every day usage to mean gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined. [citations omitted] Clearly wages and salaries fall within this definition and are therefore constitutionally taxable. U.S. v. Richards 732 F.2d 646 (1983).

[Gregg]

Here's a good one, and recent too!

the courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable "wages" under the Internal Revenue Code

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETER HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL

[Dr. Caligari]

Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.

Name one.

...(crickets)...

[The Observer]

Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.

Name one.

Hope you brought the crickets with you, Dr. C. I think it's a pretty safe bet we are going to need them.

[Harvester]

[quote="Dr. Caligari]Name one[/quote]Ha! As Bartleby would say "I would prefer not to." Some of you just might question your long held beliefs and wake up to what's happening all around you. You might avoid your just desserts. And of course Famspire & LPC are so obsessed they'll take this tax scam to their graves long after the IRS is dismantled.

Another tidbit for ya:
http://www.infowars.com/cia-officer-exp ... ers-demise

[Cathulhu]

"Prefer" my pink ass!
you have no citations for
your stupid theories.

[Nikki]

Actually, he went back to the Internet sites from which he was parroting and realized they didn't supply anything to support their nonsense.

I'm probably being naively optomistic, but I'm looking forward to seeing him tomorrow.

However, I'm sure that he has neither (1) the bus fare to get him to Washington nor (2) the cojones to actually follow up on his promised appearance.

[Cathulhu]

You're undoubtedly right Nikki; doubt he has the nerve. My shapeshifting alien lizards will just have to get drunk instead.

[The Operative]

Name one

Ha! As Bartleby would say "I would prefer not to." Some of you just might question your long held beliefs and wake up to what's happening all around you. You might avoid your just desserts. And of course Famspire & LPC are so obsessed they'll take this tax scam to their graves long after the IRS is dismantled.

Another tidbit for ya:
http://www.infowars.com/cia-officer-exp ... ers-demise

Translation: "I have nothing with which to refute court case after court case except conspiracy theory nonsense. To prove it, here is yet another link to more conspiracy theory nonsense."

[Harvester]

I'm probably being naively optomistic, but I'm looking forward to seeing him tomorrow.

ooo, down boy. And I thought a Nikki post next to a Harvester post was thrilling!

You know, I could list a dozen cites and you Quatlosers would tell me they couldn't possibly mean what they say. There are hardly any truthseekers posting here. The Quatloos agenda is too obvious - herd the seekers back into the taxpayer pen. The truth is out there, readily available for anyone willing to look & study. I can't be too hard on the ignorant though. I was once a sheeple too and this tax scam is a good one - best I've ever seen. Encompassing so many layers & levels of society. Stand tall warriors! We're bringing it all down!

[Famspear]

I'm probably being naively optomistic, but I'm looking forward to seeing him tomorrow.

ooo, down boy. And I thought a Nikki post next to a Harvester post was thrilling!

You know, I could list a dozen cites and you Quatlosers would tell me they couldn't possibly mean what they say. There are hardly any truthseekers posting here. The Quatloos agenda is too obvious - herd the seekers back into the taxpayer pen. The truth is out there, readily available for anyone willing to look & study. I can't be too hard on the ignorant though. I was once a sheeple too and this tax scam is a good one - best I've ever seen. Encompassing so many layers & levels of society. Stand tall warriors! We're bringing it all down!

Not exactly. You could list a dozen cites and we would tell you that 3/4ths of them are nonsense (which they would be) and the other 1/4th do not say what you claim they say. And we'd be right. And you'd be wrong, Harvester.

[Famspear]

Harvester wrote:

Haha, lengthy double post, that's more like it. Fammie, you know I love to rattle your cage....

Which is your way of admitting that you are a troll.....

sending you back to your archives to dig up those select few quotes which appear to support your side. Thanks for playing!

And thank you for playing! Fortunately, everything I quote does support "my side" as you put it.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm probably being naively optomistic, but I'm looking forward to seeing him tomorrow.

ooo, down boy. And I thought a Nikki post next to a Harvester post was thrilling!

You know, I could list a dozen cites....

Try us, coward. Just make sure that the HOLDING in the case conforms with your assertions. Don't give us dicta. To help you understand the difference: in 1965, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy, for married couples, forbade any state from banning their access to contraception. Justice Douglas's well-known dictum (singular of dicta) was that the right of privacy could be found in the "penumbras and emanations" of other enumerated rights. Justice Harlan explained his view that the Due Process clause was applicable. Dicta like these are of assistance in understanding and resolving subsequent cases; but they can easily be taken ou of context. Thus, when you provide these mysterious cites of yours (unless you're too much of a coward to do so), give us the HOLDING in the case, as well as the dicta.

[jg]

My suggestion is for you Harvester is to start a new thread with one or two of what you consider to be the best evidence or support for your theory (yes, pick just one).

Although some here are quick to deride and derail the discussion you can be assured that within the responses there will be an explanation and citations that reveal what the cases held.

It has not happened much lately, but if you are willing to respond to the posts made (rather than throw in other topics or ignore the points made) then a frank discussion will ensue.

I am not sure if the archives still hold the threads wherein the section 861 arguments were hashed through; but that is an example that there can be (or at least could be) a back and forth discussion of what the courts have indeed held and what the statutes have been held to mean if that is the truth that is being sought.

[Nikki]

Harvester:

Why is it that the people who have the most at stake with respect to income taxes; such as Gates, Buffet, and so on; and have the resources to employ the best legal talent available; don't use any of the theories or approaches that you tout?

Could it be that that they are a hell of a lot smarter than you are and that they know that the crap you're spewing it just that -- total crap?

Wouldn't it make sense for the richest people in the country to take advantage of every flaw in the law to reduce their tax liabilities?

You are an idiot. You continue to spout theories which have cost their practitioners thousands of dollars and, in some cases, their freedom.

You, like many of your predecessors, are taking advantage of a relatively anonymous Internet forum to interact with grown-ups who wouldn't give you the time of day if you met them in person.

I can't wait until tomorrow evening when you fail to show up at the Q gathering in your wonderful t-shirt. However, there is the remote possibility that we'll see you at the door, arguing with the hostess about your forged proof of age.

[The Operative]

I'm probably being naively optomistic, but I'm looking forward to seeing him tomorrow.

ooo, down boy. And I thought a Nikki post next to a Harvester post was thrilling!

You know, I could list a dozen cites and you Quatlosers would tell me they couldn't possibly mean what they say.

Yet, all we have asked for is for you to name one.

There are hardly any truthseekers posting here.

Translation: There are hardly any delusional morons posting here.

The Quatloos agenda is too obvious - herd the seekers back into the taxpayer pen.

While I cannot speak for everyone here, my agenda is to prevent some people from ruining their lives and try to keep them from following erroneous information or conspiracy theory nonsense.

The truth is out there, readily available for anyone willing to look & study.

Yes, it is. Too bad that you are too busy trying to justify your delusions to see it.

I can't be too hard on the ignorant though. I was once a sheeple too and this tax scam is a good one - best I've ever seen. Encompassing so many layers & levels of society. Stand tall warriors! We're bringing it all down!

Harvester, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.

[LPC]

Yes LPC, Congress can tax our inalienable right to earn a livelihood, but it must be apportioned (per the Constitution).

With your opinion, and a quarter, I have 25 cents.

[webhick]

Harvester, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.

It's in a jar on my desk. And I made it a bunny suit, which it wears every single day. It used to be on the shelf and I would bring it down every so often so I could make it look like it was following Jimmy Stewart's jarred brain around and I would pretend they were talking to each other, but the conversation started to dry up. I mean, you know it's time to separate the two when they float to the top of the jar and comment on the new air conditioning system. So now it sits atop a stack of supposedly completed "Unauthorized Removal of Extraneous Appendage" forms, which was only done because of the stiff breeze the interns cause as they run away from me. Sometimes I look at it and I feel like it might be lonely, so I talk to it. And there's been times when it talks back, and I don't like that, so I pour a bit of menthol into the jar and I'm lulled to sleep by the sound of it screaming.

Good times...