What law does this?

[26USCisafraud]

[

So he violated 6091, 7621 and a host of other CFR regs by eliminating the district director position along with the internal revenue districts and the service center serving the districts

Checkmate!

Only it's against you, Moron. He had the power to eliminate, as you yourself pointed out. As for the rest of your ravings, they are not worth any more of my time to rebut -- for one thing, you are incapable of understanding any such rebutals, or of forming a coherent response to them.

You really ought to stop sneaking into the nurses' station and using their computers, or else they'll take you to the Time Out room and give you some of that "special juice", after they put you into the Special Jacket.

Yeah right, I don't know what I am talking about. How bout some facts? Can you handle that?

§ 301.6201–1 Assessment authority.
(a) In general. The district director is
authorized and required to make all inquiries...


OR


§ 301.6303–1 Notice and demand for
tax.
(a) General rule. Where it is not otherwise
provided by the Code, the district
director or the director of the regional
service center shall, after the making
of an assessment of a tax pursuant to
section 6203, give notice to each person
liable for the unpaid tax,...

dO i HAVE TO KICK yOU In THE hEAd SOMemore, iDIOT?! MAS? eh? MAS?

[LPC]

Jeez. Turn your back for a few hours.

Because Congress doesn't give a damn about doing what's right, [...]

We all know how this is going to end. "Fraud" declares himself to be the winner, and reality is the loser.

We can all scream at the idiot all we want, but that's not going to make the idiot any smarter, or change what the idiot thinks.

[26USCisafraud]

Jeez. Turn your back for a few hours.

Because Congress doesn't give a damn about doing what's right, [...]

We all know how this is going to end. "Fraud" declares himself to be the winner, and reality is the loser.

We can all scream at the idiot all we want, but that's not going to make the idiot any smarter, or change what the idiot thinks.

Facts have a tendency to win out, don't they Dan?

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Yeah right, I don't know what I am talking about. How bout some facts? Can you handle that?

§ 301.6201–1 Assessment authority.
(a) In general. The district director is
authorized and required to make all inquiries...


OR


§ 301.6303–1 Notice and demand for
tax.
(a) General rule. Where it is not otherwise
provided by the Code, the district
director or the director of the regional
service center shall, after the making
of an assessment of a tax pursuant to
section 6203, give notice to each person
liable for the unpaid tax,...

dO i HAVE TO KICK yOU In THE hEAd SOMemore, iDIOT?! MAS? eh? MAS?

You are, I'm afraid, a glaringly prime example of why mankind is looked down upon by many supernatural cultures. All the wonderful gifts your race was given, and you exult and congratulate yourselves for not using them.

The so-called "sovereign citizens", close kin to your tax denial ilk, could be described thusly:

Imagine that you were going to an expensive formal dinner, helping what you thought was a worthy, charitable cause. But the entree, rather than fine food, proved to be a single jellybean - baby wipes flavor at that - and that was the high point of the evening's meal. Everything else was worse.

That's how tax deniers, sovereign citizens, and the like make demons feel, when they die and go to the next world. Completely unpalatable souls. And angels, who are used to much finer fare, are absolutely aghast that such crude souls could possibly have been claiming ties to their liege, much less to have been serving his will.

Now, are you a respectable human being, or a baby wipes jellybean?

[The Operative]

Jeez. Turn your back for a few hours.

Because Congress doesn't give a damn about doing what's right, [...]

We all know how this is going to end. "Fraud" declares himself to be the winner, and reality is the loser.

We can all scream at the idiot all we want, but that's not going to make the idiot any smarter, or change what the idiot thinks.

Facts have a tendency to win out, don't they Dan?

Too bad you haven't presented a single fact that actually supports your side of the argument.

[LPC]

We can all scream at the idiot all we want, but that's not going to make the idiot any smarter, or change what the idiot thinks.

Facts have a tendency to win out, don't they Dan?

That was my point. The fact that you are an idiot will win out.

[grixit]

Let's throw this one back until it develops some entertainment value.

[Pottapaug1938]

Yeah right, I don't know what I am talking about. How bout some facts? Can you handle that?

Yeah -- if you ever presented any, which you have yet to do. All you've done is present the occasional disembodied quote, with no context available with which we can judge its veracity. You, like your fellow TD idiots, have yet to cite ONE court case in which the HOLDING of the case supports your contentions.

[26USCisafraud]

We can all scream at the idiot all we want, but that's not going to make the idiot any smarter, or change what the idiot thinks.

Facts have a tendency to win out, don't they Dan?

That was my point. The fact that you are an idiot will win out.

Dan,

I'm going to ignore everyone else on this board because most are government teat suckers engorging themselves on other peoples' money.

So let's you and me just talk facts, ok?

Fact #1. You and I both know that RRA98 is used for the basis for the current IRS topography where Secretary O'Neill chose to eliminate rather than modify the internal revenue district structure in 2001.

Fact #2. After millions in public money was spent on this re-org, the structure that exists today was itself cancelled by the current Treasury Order 150-02. The IRS is totally operating outside the law as a result.

Fact #3. There is a multitude of Public Law, USC and CFR sections that rely on the district director position that are not being obeyed by the IRS, thereby denying every American 'due process' every year. Must I list them for you?

Fact #4. The IRS was never created by statute. CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) footnote 23. It has grown since 1862 like a cancer on the butt of Uncle Sam. The civil war may have ended racial slavery, but it gave birth of taxation slavery which we have to this day.

Fact #5. When the legal 'experts' on this board get their collective brains stomped in through argument using facts, they resort to name calling, bed wetting, belly aching and towel crying.


Care to admit or deny?

[Pottapaug1938]

Dan,

I'm going to ignore everyone else on this board because most are government teat suckers engorging themselves on other peoples' money.

So let's you and me just talk facts, ok?

That would be a first for you.

[Pottapaug1938]

Fact #5. When the legal 'experts' on this board get their collective brains stomped in through argument using facts, they resort to name calling....

Once again, you've yet to present any facts, in a fashion which allows us to judge the context; and you've yet to present us with the HOLDING in any appellate court case which supports your contentions. And, if we resort to "name calling", it's because you've yet to deserve anything better from us. Like Van Pelt and Harvester, you play the same broken record over and over; and when you are challenged for proof of your assertions you evade the question, and offer only reiterations of what you've already said, or word salad which proves nothing.

[Imalawman]

We can all scream at the idiot all we want, but that's not going to make the idiot any smarter, or change what the idiot thinks.

Facts have a tendency to win out, don't they Dan?
That was my point. The fact that you are an idiot will win out.


Dan,

I'm going to ignore everyone else on this board because most are government teat suckers engorging themselves on other peoples' money.

So let's you and me just talk facts, ok?

Fact #1. You and I both know that RRA98 is used for the basis for the current IRS topography where Secretary O'Neill chose to eliminate rather than modify the internal revenue district structure in 2001.

Fact #2. After millions in public money was spent on this re-org, the structure that exists today was itself cancelled by the current Treasury Order 150-02. The IRS is totally operating outside the law as a result.

Fact #3. There is a multitude of Public Law, USC and CFR sections that rely on the district director position that are not being obeyed by the IRS, thereby denying every American 'due process' every year. Must I list them for you?

Fact #4. The IRS was never created by statute. CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) footnote 23. It has grown since 1862 like a cancer on the butt of Uncle Sam. The civil war may have ended racial slavery, but it gave birth of taxation slavery which we have to this day.

Fact #5. When the legal 'experts' on this board get their collective brains stomped in through argument using facts, they resort to name calling, bed wetting, belly aching and towel crying.

Care to admit or deny?

Wow, what an idiot. At the end of the day, I just don't care. I know the law, I know how to apply it. I enjoy my life and not having to worry about losing all of my property. So, I couldn't care less what you might have dreamed up regarding the internal revenue. I'll make you a deal - let's come back here in 5 years and we'll see who's better off. I'll pay taxes and you stop paying taxes because its somehow "illegal".

Why don't you find some people who are stupid enough to buy your BS and quit bothering us with your bloviating, narcissistic, and incoherent rants.

[Joe Dirt]

Why don't you find some people who are stupid enough to buy your BS and quit bothering us with your bloviating, narcissistic, and incoherent rants.

There's going to be management vacancy at LostHorizons soon.

[wserra]

May I make a respectful suggestion to my colleagues?

Over the last few months, we have seen more than our usual quota of trolls. Ninety-five percent of what they regurgitate is unsupported even by attempts at citations. There is no point in debating someone over their own wishful thinking or outright delusions. All you get in response is "Oh yes it is!!!!!" (or words to that effect), because that's the sum total of their treasure trove. It's an "argument" with a first-grader.

Every now and then, one will actually cite law. That makes refutation possible. Moreover, if the troll then attempts a variant of "Oh yes it is!!!!", the existence of verifiable facts - the cite - makes the vapidity of such response clear. For example:

Fact #4. The IRS was never created by statute. CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) footnote 23.

Wrong. Here is footnote 23 from Chrysler Corp in its entirety:

There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that during the Civil War 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field - "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" - and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

It is perfectly clear to anyone with the reading comprehension of a third-grader that the Supreme Court is saying, not that the IRS was not created by statute, but that the bureaucracy was not created by the original statute which created the predecessor agency of the IRS. It is of course implicit in that opinion that the IRS itself is, in fact, a duly-created agency of the United States - and that it does not matter that the statute didn't create the bureaucracy. Anyone who doesn't see that either doesn't want to or can't read.

My suggestion: if someone like our present troll comes along and cites law - well, have at 'em. If, on the other hand, s/he merely states an opinion without citation, debate is likely pointless. It's enough to point out that no one whose opinion matters agrees.

[Dezcad]

This argument is directly from Lindsey Springer. He lost that argument and was convicted. In addition, Jerrold Barringer, Lindsey's appellate counsel, has used it in another pending criminal action - United States v. Richard Gilbert Case 3:09CR-57 W.D. Kentucky.

You can see some information on that case here.

The argument has NEVER been successful and never will.

[26USCisafraud]

May I make a respectful suggestion to my colleagues?

Over the last few months, we have seen more than our usual quota of trolls. Ninety-five percent of what they regurgitate is unsupported even by attempts at citations. There is no point in debating someone over their own wishful thinking or outright delusions. All you get in response is "Oh yes it is!!!!!" (or words to that effect), because that's the sum total of their treasure trove. It's an "argument" with a first-grader.

Every now and then, one will actually cite law. That makes refutation possible. Moreover, if the troll then attempts a variant of "Oh yes it is!!!!", the existence of verifiable facts - the cite - makes the vapidity of such response clear. For example:

Fact #4. The IRS was never created by statute. CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) footnote 23.

Wrong. Here is footnote 23 from Chrysler Corp in its entirety:

There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that during the Civil War 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field - "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" - and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

It is perfectly clear to anyone with the reading comprehension of a third-grader that the Supreme Court is saying, not that the IRS was not created by statute, but that the bureaucracy was not created by the original statute which created the predecessor agency of the IRS. It is of course implicit in that opinion that the IRS itself is, in fact, a duly-created agency of the United States - and that it does not matter that the statute didn't create the bureaucracy. Anyone who doesn't see that either doesn't want to or can't read.

My suggestion: if someone like our present troll comes along and cites law - well, have at 'em. If, on the other hand, s/he merely states an opinion without citation, debate is likely pointless. It's enough to point out that no one whose opinion matters agrees.

Liar!

Here is some 'psychological' third grade reading for you where unelected officials decide how to continue the fraud.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/AndrewsMemo.pdf

[wserra]

Every now and then, one will actually cite law. That makes refutation possible. Moreover, if the troll then attempts a variant of "Oh yes it is!!!!", the existence of verifiable facts - the cite - makes the vapidity of such response clear.

Liar!

Like I said.

[The Operative]

Liar!

Here is some 'psychological' third grade reading for you where unelected officials decide how to continue the fraud.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/AndrewsMemo.pdf

The 'fraud' is only in your mind. The position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by statute as a subordinate to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commissioner was given the authority by statute to hire the personnel necessary to carry out and enforce the internal revenue laws. It is clearly within the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to assign a name to the organization.

[Pottapaug1938]

Here is some 'psychological' third grade reading for you where unelected officials decide how to continue the fraud.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/AndrewsMemo.pdf

You flunk, Dummy. One multi-generational memo from 1953 which isn't even on point with your contentions does you no good at all. This "evidence" of yours refers only to nomenclature, and then gives an overview of the revenue services of the US.

In short: once again, you have completely wasted our time.

[Demosthenes]

You guys are engaging in a war of wits with an unarmed opponent.