Harvester cites a case

[jg]

In THE DILIGIZER BOARD -- Securities Fraud -- Due Diligence in Finance topic the following was posted:
Re: JPMorgan Loses Motion to Dismiss Alabama Sewer Bond Fraud Su
by Harvester on Tue May 11, 2010 3:47 am

Nice!
Hopefully the court won't dismiss Americans claims that Quatlosers enticed them into slavery via the misapplication of Federal Income Tax statutes.

That every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this admission.
The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120 (1825)

The snippet in context from http://openjurist.org/23/us/66/the-ante ... d-portugal

In the United States, different opinions have been entertained in the different Circuits and Districts; and the subject is now, for the first time, before this Court.
The question, whether the slave trade is prohibited by the law of nations has been seriously propounded, and both the affirmative and negative of the proposition have been maintained with equal earnestness.
That it is contrary to the law of nature will scarcely be denied. That every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labour, is generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this admission. But from the earliest times war has existed, and war confers rights in which all have acquiesced. Among the most enlightened nations of antiquity, one of these was, that the victor might enslave the vanquished. This, which was the usage of all, could not be pronounced repugnant to the law of nations, which is certainly to be tried by the test of neral usage. That which has received the assent of all, must be the law of all.
Slavery, then, has its origin in force; but as the world has agreed that it is a legitimate result of force, the state of things which is thus produced by general consent, cannot be pronounced unlawful.
Throughout Christendom, this harsh rule has been exploded, and war is no longer considered as giving a right to enslave captives. But this triumph of humanity has not been universal. The parties to the modern law of nations do not propagate their principles by force; and Africa has not yet adopted them. Throughout the whole extent of that immense continent, so far as we know its history, it is still the law of nations that prisoners are slaves. Can those who have themselves renounced this law, be permitted to participate in its effects by purchasing the beings who are its victims?
Whatever might be the answer of a moralist to this question, a jurist must search for its legal solution, in those principles of action which are sanctioned by the usages, the national acts, and the general assent, of that portion of the world of which he considers himself as a part, and to whose law the appeal is made. If we resort to this standard as the test of international law, the question, as has already been observed, is decided in favour of the legality of the trade. Both Europe and America embarked in it; and for nearly two centuries, it was carried on without opposition, and without censure. A jurist could not say, that a practice thus supported was illegal, and that those engaged in it might be punished, either personally, or by deprivation of property.
In this commerce, thus sanctioned by universal assent, every nation had an equal right to engage. How is this right to be lost? Each may renounce it for its own people; but can this renunciation affect others?
No principle of general law is more universally acknowledged, than the perfect equality of nations. Russia and Geneva have equal rights. It results from this equality, that no one can rightfully impose a rule on another. Each legislates for itself, but its legislation can operate on itself alone. A right, then, which is vested in all by the consent of all, can be devested only by consent; and this trade, in which all have participated, must remain lawful to those who cannot be induced to relinquish it. As no nation can prescribe a rule for others, none can make a law of nations; and this traffic remains lawful to those whose governments have not forbidden it.
If it is consistent with the law of nations, it cannot in itself be piracy. It can be made so only by statute; and the obligation of the statute cannot transcend the legislative power of the state which may enact it.
If it be neither repugnant to the law of nations, nor piracy, it is almost superfluous to say in this Court, that the right of bringing in for adjudication in time of peace, even where the vessel belongs to a nation which has prohibited the trade cannot exist. The Courts of no country execute the penal laws of another; and the course of the American government on the subject of visitation and search, would decide any case in which that right had been exercised by an American cruiser, on the vessel of a foreign nation, not violating our municipal laws, against the captors.
It follows, that a foreign vessel engaged in the African slave trade, captured on the high-seas in time of peace, by an American cruiser, and brought in for adjudication, would be restored.
The general question being disposed of, it remains to examine the circumstances of the particular case.

So, the decision in the case of the snippet does not support what Harvester tries to claim (or at least imply) that it says.

[wserra]

So, the decision in the case of the snippet does not support what Harvester tries to claim (or at least imply) that it says.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[LPC]

Nice!
Hopefully the court won't dismiss Americans claims that Quatlosers enticed them into slavery via the misapplication of Federal Income Tax statutes.

That every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this admission.
The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120 (1825)

The misapplication of the quotation, which as jg points out is from a case about literal slavery, requires the assumption that an "other person" includes a government. Yes, a government can be a "person" in interpreting some statutes, but that's not the most usual meaning of the word, and it certainly can't be assumed without knowing the context.

Meanwhile:

“The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by all, for the benefit of all. It resides in government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies. However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right, that it must bear a portion of the public burthens; and that portion must be determined by the legislature.”

Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514, 563 (1830), (emphasis added).

“[T]he laws of all civilized states recognize in every citizen the absolute right to his own earnings, and to the enjoyment of his own property, and the increase thereof, during his life, except so far as the state may require him to contribute his share for public expenses....”

United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 627 (1896) (emphasis added).

Back in Lost Horizons, "Nationwide" has weighed in on the subject of the Federal Reserve, citing an unnamed Supreme Court decision with enjoined ex-lawyer Ed Vieira as his source:

Yes, use of our fiat Federal Reserve debt currency creates the hidden tax of inflation. And yes, it's most likely unconstitutional. In 1933 Congress setup "private cartels throughout American industry (so-called “code authorities”) ... to make what amounted to industrial laws for the self-regulation of private businesses." The arrangement was struck down by the high court in 1935: "Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to our law and is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress."
http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin190.htm

And the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Federal Reserve Act.

(Emphasis in original.)

If (as Harvester claims) the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Federal Reserve Act, then what was "utterly inconsistent with the constitutional perogatives"?

The quoted language is from A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), which struck down part of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 because Congress had delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce to trade organizations instead of governmental agencies. So the reference to "private cartels" was a reference to what were literally private organizations, not anything like the Federal Reserve.

Like the reference to "The Antelope," the misapplication of the Schechter quotation requires an assumption about the meaning of a word or phrase, in this case that the Federal Reserve is a kind of "private cartel."

A final comment on the "hidden tax of inflation." If inflation can be considered a form of "tax," then the tax is against "bankers" and benefits wage earners, because wages rise in the face of inflation, while the mortgages and other debts owed by wage earners to banks are diminishing in value. But I guess we shouldn't expect reality to affect the firm and settled opinions of the willfully ignorant.

[Pottapaug1938]

And, of course, he has lifted a quote from the case, having nothing to do with the holding, and waved it as if it meant anything.

He is such a coward.

[Famspear]

I believe Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist is the same fellow who, just the other day in response to something I wrote, blabbered something about "dicta" and quotes taken out of context. In this behavior, he mimics statements by Peter Hendrickson he has read at losthorizons but, like Hendrickson, either does not understand the difference between a holding and obiter dicta or does not care and, like Hendrickson and other protesters, loves to take quotes out of context and try to argue that the quotes "mean" that the law is what he pretends the law to be while the courts in the cases he cites actually held something completely different. Harvester has learned from his "teacher," Blowhard Hendrickson.

Harvester has been asked repeatedly to look for a court case where someone argued that the federal income tax applies only to income realized in an activity involving a "federal privilege" (essentially, the Hendrickson/Cracking the Code nonsense) and, of course, Harvester is silent.

Further, Hendrickson has repeatedly propounded the false assertion that the courts in various cited cases have not actually ruled that the income tax is not tied to an activity involving a privilege (federal or otherwise). Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist undoubtedly subscribes to Hendrickson's nonsense on this point as well.

Someone once said, "Facts are stubborn things."

Well, the law is a stubborn thing as well. And the law is that the federal income tax is not limited to earnings from labor in an activity involving a federal privilege, as the courts have ruled over and over and over.

The fact is that Hendrickson is going back to prison for using his own Cracking the Code scam on his own tax returns. The fact is that the jury concluded that Hendrickson acted willfully when he filed those false tax returns -- that Hendrickson engaged in the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty when he claimed that his gross compensation from his private sector activity was not "income" within the meaning of the tax laws.

[Famspear]

Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist wrote:

And the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Federal Reserve Act.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2551

This statement reminds me of certain recurrent behaviors among tax protesters. When courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court rule that a particular tax protester argument is invalid, I have seen some protesters assert that lower court decisions are not precedent, and that only Supreme Court cases are precedent, which is of course nonsense.

Yet the same tax protesters will repeat quotes -- out of context -- from from lower court cases and argue that the quoted language "means" that the law is something other than what the very same lower courts have actually ruled, sometimes in the very same cases.

If the lower court decisions are not authoritative, if they are not binding precedent, why are the protesters citing those cases? And why are the protesters citing dicta and other non-binding statements from the texts?

Some of these same protesters will also repeat quotes from the texts of Supreme Court decisions and argue that these quotes "mean" something other than what the courts have actually ruled -- in the very same cases.

With the internet everywhere and the ready availability of many legal texts, con artists like Hendrickson have learned to pick up on certain legal terms like "dicta" and use them -- but they don't know how use the terms correctly. They don't know how to identify the dicta (or perhaps they deliberately put forth false arguments that the holdings they don't like are somehow only dicta, etc.).

The other point I want to make is that in their decisions, American courts cite dicta from prior court decisions all the time -- many times without identifying the quote as being dicta. The difference between the way courts do this and the way the tax protesters do this is that the courts generally do not use dicta from prior court cases to try to mislead the reader into thinking that the law is something other than what the law really is.

[wserra]

I believe Harvester ... either does not understand the difference between a holding and obiter dicta or does not care and, like Hendrickson and other protesters, loves to take quotes out of context

I visit Hendrickson's site (and suijurisclub) infrequently. I spend too much time here. From the experience of others here, Hendrickson would likely ban me in short order (although I have posted to suijurisclub - not much, last over a year ago - and was treated reasonably well). From what I see, the problem really isn't quoting dicta instead of a holding. Dicta are frequently quite useful in the real life practice of law, and tend to be inaccurate only when subsequent law develops a line of reasoning past the original case.

As others have observed, these guys know their answer before doing the research. They thus latch onto language which they can take out of context to attempt to support a predetermined conclusion. As happened with Harvester quoting from Antelope, in context the case (statute, reg) frequently dictates the opposite of the TP's point. The problem isn't so much one of quoting dicta, though, as quoting selectively.

[Cathulhu]

Let's keep in mind just how far out a bozo, excuse me, tax protester has to go to become one.

First, the neurosis; I don't like paying taxes. I pay too much taxes. I don't understand taxes. Other people say they don't pay taxes, so if I find the right magic, I don't have to either. Let everyone else pay the bills, I deserve a free ride. (If they even think about what taxes are used for, they dismiss with "I've paid my share already." Even if they apply to get all prior taxes refunded.) Freeloading? No, no, I'm free.Behold the castle in the clouds forming.


Next, the hook. The neurotic, uninformed person is about to become a mighty victim, by paying actual money to a scammer to learn the "secrets" of "cracking the code", or "sovereign citizen" or "I'm actually a alien from planet Foonbar" or whatever the creeps are selling this time. As we know, this word salad bears no resemblance to the law, just parrots a lot of impressive-sounding (to the uneducated) verbage. As Harv so frequently reminds us, the trolls are out there looking for victims.

Now this is the point where sanity could prevail, and in at least one case I know of, did. At least one person listened to all the crap, said, "I see everyone around me pay taxes to pay for schools, roads, social security, and I don't think your law is correct." and hired a decent accountant, like a sensible person. She still owns all her property. She failed to cross the line from neurosis to acting out, which is where psychosis begins.

The acting out in this case generally means the victim, buying into the scam, puts it into writing. Frivpens, here we come. This is one reason why the scammers rely on whoop-it-up, praise Jesus, make up something to justify the lien on your house and remember we're all here for you! And some anonymous voice will claim this all worked just fine for him! Except none of us can or will pay your taxes or go to jail for you. At this point, the neurosis has become psychosis; our victim has moved into the castle in the clouds.

I think the mindset of such persons, judging from the ones I've dealt with, becomes extremely rigid and at this point particularly. They cannot admit that reality prevails, or boy howdy, have they screwed up!!! At this point the denial and rationalization become the stuff of legend--or of quatloos.

[ASITStands]

I believe Harvester ... either does not understand the difference between a holding and obiter dicta or does not care and, like Hendrickson and other protesters, loves to take quotes out of context

[leading text redacted] From what I see, the problem really isn't quoting dicta instead of a holding. Dicta are frequently quite useful in the real life practice of law, and tend to be inaccurate only when subsequent law develops a line of reasoning past the original case.

As others have observed, these guys know their answer before doing the research. They thus latch onto language which they can take out of context to attempt to support a predetermined conclusion. As happened with Harvester quoting from Antelope, in context the case (statute, reg) frequently dictates the opposite of the TP's point. The problem isn't so much one of quoting dicta, though, as quoting selectively.

Another symptom I found in the beginning was quoting what someone else had written.

I honestly think that 'Harvester' didn't know what came BEFORE and AFTER the portion of Antelope he quoted. He simply took what someone else had written and cited it.

I'd like to ask him if he's ever really read Antelope.

Was he aware the subject-matter was slavery and had nothing to do with labor or the fruits thereof? It had nothing to do with compensation for labor or services whatsoever.

So, it's not merely quoting dicta out of context or being unaware of the holding, but also, simply not having read the case at all but citing it because someone else did, and not seeing if anything discussed in the case actually applied to the questions at hand.

I've seen that so many times. I've even seen supposed Supreme Court cases misquoted or a State Supreme Court case cited as a United States Supreme Court case, and other errors.

That's actually what got me started debunking tax protester arguments.

[Pottapaug1938]

Of course, Harvester never read the Antelope decision; and even if he had, he wouldn't be able to pick out the holding in the case from among the paragraphs of Magical Legal Words he saw in front of him, or able to fully understand the case if he bothered to read it all. All he cares about is finding a quote which can be lifted out of a case and used to buttress his delusions.

[Pottapaug1938]

To help people like Harvester understand what we are talking about when we mention holdings and (obiter) dicta, here's an excerpt from the Antelope case, taken from jg's earlier post:

"In the United States, different opinions have been entertained in the different Circuits and Districts; and the subject is now, for the first time, before this Court.
The question, whether the slave trade is prohibited by the law of nations has been seriously propounded, and both the affirmative and negative of the proposition have been maintained with equal earnestness."

"It follows, that a foreign vessel engaged in the African slave trade, captured on the high-seas in time of peace, by an American cruiser, and brought in for adjudication, would be restored.
The general question being disposed of, it remains to examine the circumstances of the particular case."

The first paragraph poses the question before the court; and the second one answers that question. That second paragraph is the holding in the case. Everything else is (obiter) dicta; which in Latin means "said by the way". Dicta are commentaries which serve to illuminate the reasoning behind the holding, but they must not be confused with the holding itself.

Now that you know what we want, Harvester: are you going to come up with those cases and holdings for which we have challenged you; or are you a coward?

[Duke2Earl]

Not to defend the defenseless, but it's really not so much that he's a coward. He's not afraid to cite a case. He literally can't cite a case. There are none and even if there were he wouldn't know how to cite them. He written a check he can't cash. He was foolish enough to believe the hooey that internet tax deniers throw around all the time. Lots of sites say there are cases that support the nonsense... Hendrickson says it... lots more say it as well but we know that they are lying. But poor pitiful Harvester believes it. This may make him a fool, and perhaps an idiot but not necessarily a coward.

[Pottapaug1938]

Not to defend the defenseless, but it's really not so much that he's a coward. He's not afraid to cite a case. He literally can't cite a case. There are none and even if there were he wouldn't know how to cite them. He written a check he can't cash. He was foolish enough to believe the hooey that internet tax deniers throw around all the time. Lots of sites say there are cases that support the nonsense... Hendrickson says it... lots more say it as well but we know that they are lying. But poor pitiful Harvester believes it. This may make him a fool, and perhaps an idiot but not necessarily a coward.

Well, whatever he is, he doesn't have the guts to step up and say, "I can't find such a case", or at least stop trying to buttress his fantasies with out-of-context quotes.

[ASITStands]

Not to defend the defenseless, but it's really not so much that he's a coward. He's not afraid to cite a case. He literally can't cite a case. There are none and even if there were he wouldn't know how to cite them. He written a check he can't cash. He was foolish enough to believe the hooey that internet tax deniers throw around all the time. Lots of sites say there are cases that support the nonsense... Hendrickson says it... lots more say it as well but we know that they are lying. But poor pitiful Harvester believes it. This may make him a fool, and perhaps an idiot but not necessarily a coward.

Well, whatever he is, he doesn't have the guts to step up and say, "I can't find such a case", or at least stop trying to buttress his fantasies with out-of-context quotes.

And, he hasn't even answered whether he's ever read Antelope.

Where is 'Harvester' anyway? Here we are talking about him, and he's absent.

[Gregg]

Not to defend the defenseless, but it's really not so much that he's a coward. He's not afraid to cite a case. He literally can't cite a case. There are none and even if there were he wouldn't know how to cite them. He written a check he can't cash. He was foolish enough to believe the hooey that internet tax deniers throw around all the time. Lots of sites say there are cases that support the nonsense... Hendrickson says it... lots more say it as well but we know that they are lying. But poor pitiful Harvester believes it. This may make him a fool, and perhaps an idiot but not necessarily a coward.

Well, whatever he is, he doesn't have the guts to step up and say, "I can't find such a case", or at least stop trying to buttress his fantasies with out-of-context quotes.

And, he hasn't even answered whether he's ever read Antelope.

Where is 'Harvester' anyway? Here we are talking about him, and he's absent.

cowering in a corner or desperately searching for a case that he can mis-quote to try can divert attention....or studying Van Pelt Theory

[The Operative]

Not to defend the defenseless, but it's really not so much that he's a coward. He's not afraid to cite a case. He literally can't cite a case. There are none and even if there were he wouldn't know how to cite them. He written a check he can't cash. He was foolish enough to believe the hooey that internet tax deniers throw around all the time. Lots of sites say there are cases that support the nonsense... Hendrickson says it... lots more say it as well but we know that they are lying. But poor pitiful Harvester believes it. This may make him a fool, and perhaps an idiot but not necessarily a coward.

Well, whatever he is, he doesn't have the guts to step up and say, "I can't find such a case", or at least stop trying to buttress his fantasies with out-of-context quotes.

Well, that is all he can do since his entire knowledge about law is derived from sovereignoramous websites like SEDM and SuiJuris.

[Harvester]

hahaha! Did I cite a case? So sorry; I'll try not to do it again. And one involving a slave ship from 1825 no less. Appreciate the education re: holding vs. dicta. At least you're not saying dicta is untrue; and I thank you for that. Once again, what am I trying to support?

If (as Harvester claims) the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Federal Reserve Act, then what was "utterly inconsistent with the constitutional perogatives"?

The private cartels ("code authorities") setup for self-regulation of private businesses; very similar to our Federal Reserve and later struck down by the high court. You deny that the Federal Reserve is a private cartel?

If inflation can be considered a form of "tax," then the tax is against "bankers" and benefits wage earners, because wages rise in the face of inflation,..

Now that's just plain laughable. Those closest to the money spigot (elites, govts & their partners) lose hardly anything (& may benefit) while the poor at the end lose the most. Wages are among the items last to rise and lag the true rate of inflation (averaging about 6% annually).

I believe Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist is the same fellow who, just the other day in response to something I wrote, blabbered something about "dicta" and quotes taken out of context.

Nope, wasn't me. Your age is showing.

Regarding the cases that support the limited nature of our Income Tax excise - there are lots. And some patriots have won this battle in court, although I admit, most have lost. I prefer not to cite or argue those cases here. The agenda of this site is all too clear. Most here are not interested in the truth; but rather, to continue FedCorp and it's deception against the American people. First, those who have won are often later targeted by the beast for, shall we say, special treatment. The beast hates losing and the victorious need no further notoriety. Secondly you'll continue with your dicta/holding distraction. Say the cases/judges do not mean what they say. Say "that case is not even a TAX case you [expletive]" when it is relevant and has been cited in other tax cases. Thirdly, If you, the banker/DOJ/IRS, were on the losing end of one of those cases and you had the power to seal the record so the public wouldn't find out that it actually worked, would you do it? ...of course you would. They win but the public loses because FedCorp controls the press and the courts seal them up tight so JohnQPublic believes it was a failure.

That the beast has partnered with government agencies/actors is all too obvious to those paying attention. It must partner with those in power to keep the scam alive. And make no mistake about who we're battling with here. It is the Banksters.

[The Operative]

You deny that the Federal Reserve is a private cartel?

I do. The only reason you think it is a private cartel is because your knowledge of the Federal Reserve comes from conspiracy theory nonsense websites.

[LPC]

Regarding the cases that support the limited nature of our Income Tax excise - there are lots.

If that were true, then it would be easy to cite *one.*

Since you haven't cited even *one,* you're either an idiot or a liar or both.

[Famspear]

hahaha! Did I cite a case? So sorry; I'll try not to do it again. And one involving a slave ship from 1825 no less. Appreciate the education re: holding vs. dicta. At least you're not saying dicta is untrue; and I thank you for that. Once again, what am I trying to support?

You are trying to support the laughable argument that the Federal Reserve System is a private cartel. You are trying to support the argument that there is some federal court case somewhere -- you never can seem to find it -- where the court ruled that the federal income tax must somehow be tied to an activity involving a federal privilege.

And yes, you were the one blabbering about dicta, etc.

Regarding the cases that support the limited nature of our Income Tax excise - there are lots.

NO, there are none. Zero. Zilch.

And some patriots have won this battle in court, although I admit, most have lost.

You are lying. No one has ever "won this battle in court."

I prefer not to cite or argue those cases here.

Very convenient way of saying "there are no such cases, but I'm gonna pretend I believe there are."

The agenda of this site is all too clear. Most here are not interested in the truth; but rather, to continue FedCorp and it's deception against the American people.

Baloney.

First, those who have won are often later targeted by the beast for, shall we say, special treatment.

You're lying. We know and you know it - and you know we know it. Troooooolllllll Meister!

Thirdly, If you, the banker/DOJ/IRS, were on the losing end of one of those cases and you had the power to seal the record so the public wouldn't find out that it actually worked, would you do it? ...of course you would. They win but the public loses because FedCorp controls the press and the courts seal them up tight so JohnQPublic believes it was a failure.

Liarrrrrrr........

That the beast has partnered with government agencies/actors is all too obvious to those paying attention. It must partner with those in power to keep the scam alive. And make no mistake about who we're battling with here. It is the Banksters.

Sell it to your fellow Wackadoosters at losthorizons, etc. Sell it to the Fabulous Felon, the Bloviating Blowhard, the Haughty Hendrickson, the PontificatingPrisonBoundPeterMeister.