Shots fired at the Dog Walker being used to justify violence

[The Observer]

Please, Imalawman, refer to your secret decoder ring. "Are you turkey hunting" is code for "I like to strip naked and shake my fat, pasty-white, hairy ass at authorities". The rest is self-explanatory.

PLEASE! I was trying to eat breakfast when I read that.

[SteveSy]

Still, has no one provided an explanation as to why this SFB dog walker was supposedly able to foil the raid? Its not like the Browns knew this took place, so the raid could still have taken place. Really Bizzare.

It’s the same “logic” they use to arrive at their tax positions. They start with the conclusion and then look for any facts to back up the conclusion and ignore any facts that undermine the conclusion.

It's far better than what 99.999% of you use.... "They said so, so it must be true!"

[webhick]

I don't believe things because "someone says so". I looked at the WTP tax protestor packet with the bewilderment of, "Wow, Is this true?" and when looking up the court cases, statues, and laws found that I read things quite a bit differently than they did (and in some cases, their cites didn't even seem applicable). I made up my own mind. It's junk. A layman such as myself can think TP crap is junk without anyone telling us to think that way.

[gezco]

Still, has no one provided an explanation as to why this SFB dog walker was supposedly able to foil the raid? Its not like the Browns knew this took place, so the raid could still have taken place. Really Bizzare.

It’s the same “logic” they use to arrive at their tax positions. They start with the conclusion and then look for any facts to back up the conclusion and ignore any facts that undermine the conclusion.

It's far better than what 99.999% of you use.... "They said so, so it must be true!"

So, it’s better to just make up your own rules and do what ever the hell you feel like than to listen to professionals who do know the law? Since Aaron Russo said it, it must be true?

[SteveSy]

It’s the same “logic” they use to arrive at their tax positions. They start with the conclusion and then look for any facts to back up the conclusion and ignore any facts that undermine the conclusion.

It's far better than what 99.999% of you use.... "They said so, so it must be true!"

So, it’s better to just make up your own rules and do what ever the hell you feel like than to listen to professionals who do know the law? Since Aaron Russo said it, it must be true?

No, never said that....but that is EXACTLY what many of you accept. The judge can make up whatever the hell he wants to and it’s the law. Their "opinion", and that's all it is, is unquestionable, it becomes truth on mere utterance to many if not all of you. TP's, not all of them, actually research the hell out of the subject. Now you can claim they're wrong but there is no doubt they research the subject far more than any modern day judge does. Judges rarely if ever try and find the facts behind their decision concerning the ability of the government to tax earnings of individuals. They simply start citing cases regardless if those cases have any substantive facts to support the decisions. In short it all comes down to "Because they said so” and nothing more.

[Disilloosianed]

TP's, not all of them, actually research the hell out of the subject. Now you can claim they're wrong but there is no doubt they research the subject far more than any modern day judge does.

The difference, of course, being that judges are elected or appointed by elected officials to make pronouncements on what the law is. That's their job, Stevesys. So yes, what they say is the law until it is overturned. If tax protesters were so much more qualified to expound on the law, someone would elect or appoint them.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: No, tax protesters do NOT generally "research the hell out of the subject." John Bulten is a classic example - falsely citing cases for propositions not found in those cases, such as Bulten's references to the Downes and Ellis cases we've exposed in the last few days.

The idea that tax protesters "research the subject far more than any modern day judge does" is laughable. The vast majority of tax protesters cannot properly research law, because (A) tax protesters do not have the all the tools available to lawyers and judges, and (B) tax protesters do not have the proper training, and (C) tax protesters do not have the expertise that comes from experience, and (D) the protesters suffer from a psychological delusion that prevents them from accepting what they read.

Your statement that "Judges rarely if ever try and find the facts behind their decision concerning the ability of the government to tax earnings of individuals" is laughable.

Your statement that "They [the judges] simply start citing cases regardless if those cases have any substantive facts to support the decisions" perfectly describes the tax protesters, not the judges.

No, it does not comes down to "Because they said so and nothing more. Yours, Famspear

[Imalawman]

TP's, not all of them, actually research the hell out of the subject. Now you can claim they're wrong but there is no doubt they research the subject far more than any modern day judge does.

Come on, Steve, that's a little over the top don't you think? Have you ever talked with a supreme court judge? Ever met a state supreme court judge? Any talk with a judge (outside of the courtroom)? I think they'd definately deny that. They spend a good portion of their time trying to come to a proper legal conclusion which means reading and reviewing research as a full-time occupation. Most TP's study online after they finish cleaning pools for the day. (not to mention how they aren't even trained how to perform legal research or lack access to a meaningful legal database)

[gezco]

It's far better than what 99.999% of you use.... "They said so, so it must be true!"

So, it’s better to just make up your own rules and do what ever the hell you feel like than to listen to professionals who do know the law? Since Aaron Russo said it, it must be true?

No, never said that....but that is EXACTLY what many of you accept. The judge can make up whatever the hell he wants to and it’s the law. Their "opinion", and that's all it is, is unquestionable, it becomes truth on mere utterance to many if not all of you. TP's, not all of them, actually research the hell out of the subject. Now you can claim they're wrong but there is no doubt they research the subject far more than any modern day judge does. Judges rarely if ever try and find the facts behind their decision concerning the ability of the government to tax earnings of individuals. They simply start citing cases regardless if those cases have any substantive facts to support the decisions. In short it all comes down to "Because they said so” and nothing more.

I didn’t realize judge’s opinions were unquestionable. I thought we had appellate courts in this country. Did that change? I also thought that the legislative branch could change the law if they didn’t like the way judges were interpreting it.

[SteveSy]

TP's, not all of them, actually research the hell out of the subject. Now you can claim they're wrong but there is no doubt they research the subject far more than any modern day judge does.

The difference, of course, being that judges are elected or appointed by elected officials to make pronouncements on what the law is. That's their job, Stevesys. So yes, what they say is the law until it is overturned. If tax protesters were so much more qualified to expound on the law, someone would elect or appoint them.

No it’s not law....it’s an opinion of law and nothing more. See that's the difference between you and I. I see them as public servants you see them as public masters. This country was founded upon individual rights and liberty for all with a very limited government bound in chains by the constitution. You've accepted the fact that the government defines its own limits....I deny that and accept that people define its limits. Unfortunately the government has done a very good job of convincing the masses, you included, that it is your master. You believe its limits are controlled by the vote alone. Strange how you don't see that voting becomes nothing more than a facade if it is the only limiting power. It’s the people's constitution, it’s the people that decide when and where government is exceeding its powers. The courts were designed to be the weakest of all arms of government. You’ve been indoctrinated by them to believe they are in fact the strongest of all, and by mere opinion alone can change the application of law and the limit of our liberties. Of course that’s not a representative republic., that’s an Oligarchy.

Do I believe in anarchy...no, I do believe that the government is a servant though and is very, very limited in its powers over the people. It can only have powers we as individuals have. You can't authorize someone to be your representative with more power than you have yourself. You don’t have the right to take from your neighbor at your will and pleasure because you feel the old lady down the road needs help or that the supposedly poor family across the river needs healthcare. If you want to pay, it’s your right. You don’t have the power or authority to steal from your neighbor to accomplish what you believe is thoughtful and caring. Not even a mob has the right to steal, nor do they have a right to make a self decided rule authorizing someone else to steal for them.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy-

If for the sake of argument we posit that 99% of all the judges, lawyers, CPAs, law professors, etc., are just "wrong" about the tax law -- either because they are engaged in some vast, secret, malevolent agreement (conspiracy) to hide the truth and oppress the American people, or because somehow the vast majority of judges aren't properly researching these tax cases, then how did all this manage to stay covered up from the year 1913 to the year 1975, when tax protester cases started bubbling up in litigation?

Look at the stupid "Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified" baloney. This never even came up until about 1976, when a person BORN ON THE DAY THE AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED would have been over sixty old! (Aside from the "Ohio is not really a state" argument, the earliest reported court case where this baloney was looked at was United States v. House, 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985). This was a "William Benson" argument (The Law That Never Was) case. Benson -- who later spent time in prison on a tax conviction -- couldn't convince anyone of his hilariously preposterous theories (anyone, of course, except the tax protesters who bought his nonsense). Benson continues to try to mislead people on his own web site with at least one phony "quotation" from a court case (a repetitive tactic of tax protesters - making falsely quotations -- dishonesty that is hilariously easy for any lawyer or judge to expose). Benson is still having tax problems.

What happened to all the state legislators in all the states where the supposedly unratified amendment was deemed to have been ratified? How come nobody noticed that this supposedly unratified amendment was being published as part of the U.S. Constitution for sixty or seventy years, until Mr. Benson came along?

Tax protesters as a group, ironically, suffer from the "you can't fool me" syndrome. Tax protesters hold the delusional belief that they hold the truth. They do not. In reality. tax protesters as a group are gullible in the extreme. ---Famspear

[Duke2Earl]

Sybil says he doesn't believe in anarchy.... but he does believe that individuals have the right to decide the law for themselves and courts (or the government) don't have the power to make binding determinations about what the law is and how it should be applied. Perhaps he can explain exactly how his formulation differs from anarchy. It sure sounds like anarchy to me when every individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they need to obey laws enacted by the government.

[silversopp]

No it’s not law....it’s an opinion of law and nothing more. See that's the difference between you and I. I see them as public servants you see them as public masters.

A law enforcement officer reads a law, and thinks you're guilty of violating it, so he arrests you. You read the law, and think what you were doing was perfectly legal. When people dispute the meaning of a law, there needs to be some system to determine what the law really means. We have to have a final say in the matter. That is what the judicial branch does. We elect or appoint people who spend their lives researching laws to make those determinations. We have an appeals process which allows a person to make their case to multiple people experienced in researching the law. Then we have another layer that can review their decision.

There will be times when judges do get the law wrong. This occurs when a higher court overrules the lower court, or the legislature rewrites the law.

This country was founded upon individual rights and liberty for all...

No, go take a history class. Some of the founding fathers felt this way, but our country was founded upon a compromise of many various factions. The country was founded with slavery being legal, no absolute guarantee of property rights (eminent domain), and taxation.

You've accepted the fact that the government defines its own limits....I deny that and accept that people define its limits.

How do you think the people define the government's limits? Every person makes it up as he goes along?

The courts were designed to be the weakest of all arms of government. You’ve been indoctrinated by them to believe they are in fact the strongest of all, and by mere opinion alone can change the application of law and the limit of our liberties. Of course that’s not a representative republic., that’s an Oligarchy.

Someone failed civics.

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy-

If for the sake of argument we posit that 99% of all the judges, lawyers, CPAs, law professors, etc., are just "wrong" about the tax law -- either because they are engaged in some vast, secret, malevolent agreement (conspiracy) to hide the truth and oppress the American people, or because somehow the vast majority of judges aren't properly researching these tax cases, then how did all this manage to stay covered up from the year 1913 to the year 1975, when tax protester cases started bubbling up in litigation?

I don’t think it a mass conspiracy......Assume for the sake of argument AT&T decided to charge you more than you authorized. Your only option is to have your disagreement decided by an authorized magistrate, paid for, employed by and appointed by AT&T. How many "wins" do you think the consumers will get when having their disputes decided? What's the likelihood that overall most disputes will be held as frivolous? What's the likelihood that over time it will be well settled over a vast amount of cases that the non-authorized charges are actually declared as authorized?

[Prof]

TP's, not all of them, actually research the hell out of the subject. Now you can claim they're wrong but there is no doubt they research the subject far more than any modern day judge does.

The difference, of course, being that judges are elected or appointed by elected officials to make pronouncements on what the law is. That's their job, Stevesys. So yes, what they say is the law until it is overturned. If tax protesters were so much more qualified to expound on the law, someone would elect or appoint them.

No it’s not law....it’s an opinion of law and nothing more. See that's the difference between you and I. I see them as public servants you see them as public masters. This country was founded upon individual rights and liberty for all with a very limited government bound in chains by the constitution. You've accepted the fact that the government defines its own limits....I deny that and accept that people define its limits. Unfortunately the government has done a very good job of convincing the masses, you included, that it is your master. You believe its limits are controlled by the vote alone. Strange how you don't see that voting becomes nothing more than a facade if it is the only limiting power. It’s the people's constitution, it’s the people that decide when and where government is exceeding its powers. The courts were designed to be the weakest of all arms of government. You’ve been indoctrinated by them to believe they are in fact the strongest of all, and by mere opinion alone can change the application of law and the limit of our liberties. Of course that’s not a representative republic., that’s an Oligarchy.

Do I believe in anarchy...no, I do believe that the government is a servant though and is very, very limited in its powers over the people. It can only have powers we as individuals have. You can't authorize someone to be your representative with more power than you have yourself. You don’t have the right to take from your neighbor at your will and pleasure because you feel the old lady down the road needs help or that the supposedly poor family across the river needs healthcare. If you want to pay, it’s your right. You don’t have the power or authority to steal from your neighbor to accomplish what you believe is thoughtful and caring. Not even a mob has the right to steal, nor do they have a right to make a self decided rule authorizing someone else to steal for them.

Since the people -- not judges -- should get to decide what the law should be, but not through the legislative or constitutional process, the result must be either:

(1) Mob rule; or,
(2) Anarchy.

Steve simply wants to self-decide the law -- so that he can get the rule and result he wants. I suppose he votes for anarchy.

[silversopp]

I don’t think it a mass conspiracy......Assume for the sake of argument AT&T decided to charge you more than you authorized. Your only option is to have your disagreement decided by an authorized magistrate, paid for, employed by and appointed by AT&T.

We have authorized magistrates paid for, employed by, and appointed by the people. Wouldn't that mean that the judges are slanted towards ruling in a way that the voters would like them to rule?

That's what we have right now.

The majority of voters WANT income taxes.

[SteveSy]

Since the people -- not judges -- should get to decide what the law should be, but not through the legislative or constitutional process, the result must be either:

(1) Mob rule; or,
(2) Anarchy.

Steve simply wants to self-decide the law -- so that he can get the rule and result he wants. I suppose he votes for anarchy.

So then when a country becomes corrupt throughout and is obviously stealing liberties and wealth from the people and the people don't accept what a judge rules they either want "mob rule" or "anarchy"? I guess people in Venezuela have no complaint really….they supposedly voted for him by a land slide and their representatives authorized his powers. So in effect they are represented and are getting what they asked for. Any denial of this is simply a desire for "mob rule" or "anarchy". Same could be said for a long list of government rulers. Your argument has validated the existence of ever corrupt regime and government there ever was.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: I agree with your statement that the courts were designed to be the weakest of all arms of government.

But then, you on like this:

----"You’ve been indoctrinated by them [the courts] to believe they are in fact the strongest of all, and by mere opinion alone can change the application of law and the limit of our liberties. Of course that’s not a representative republic., that’s an Oligarchy."

Steve, you're in la-la land (to repeat a phrase used elsewhere in Quatloos recently). I haven't been indoctrinated by "the courts," at least not in the way I think you mean. As we have said over and over, our legal system comes to us from English common law. Case law is an integral part of the system, and has been since BEFORE the Founding Fathers. I did not make this up. This was the case long before you and I were born. Your belief that case law is somehow not really part of the law is delusional. You are trying to rationalize your beliefs about Federal income tax law.

In the United States, lawyers are educated through what I call "directed self-teaching." Unlike college, law school does not primarily involve reading textbooks written by "experts" or listening to lectures by "experts." Instead, most law schools base their programs on two pedagogical techniques: the case method, and the Socratic method.

Under the case method, instead of reading a textbook written by an "expert" who summarizes a body of knowledge (the way you would do in a high school or college history class, for example), you read books containing verbatim reprints of actual court decisions. You read verbatim reprints of actual statutes. You read verbatim reprints of actual regulations, etc.

In class, instead of having the professor "lecture" to you as an "expert," as you would with a history teacher or professor in a high school or college history class, you are subjected to the Socratic method. This is a method of discourse where, instead of having the professor lecture or feed you "answers," you learn to reason for yourself. In law school, you actually teach yourself, to a far greater degree than in high school or college.

If anything, high school and college (the primary sources, I suspect, of your own formal education) are far more "indoctrinating" (in the pejorative sense in which you use the term) in the subjects taught by pre-ordained "experts" than anything you would find in most law schools. So, if you have not experienced law school, you have been relatively far more "indoctrinated" than we are. If you are getting your information on tax law from tax protester web sites, you are being falsely indoctrinated in a very big way.

You are quite wrong about the tax law, and you are quite wrong about how I and other contributors approach the study of our political and legal system. ---Yours, Famspear

[ASITStands]

The majority of voters WANT income taxes.

Rather, the majority of voters want the RESULTS of taxes [including income taxes]. The majority of voters want the burden of taxes to fall on the other fellow while the benefit of taxes accrues to themselves. And, the majority of voters want FEWER taxes [and lower income taxes].

At least that's my reading of the majority.

[ASITStands]

Case law is an integral part of the system, and has been since BEFORE the Founding Fathers.

A fact most often overlooked by tax protesters and tax deniers.