Acquiring revenue through 'taxation' in America

[Lambkin]

Weston's new pledge name is "Swede"

[Imalawman]

I see that there remains no reason to take Mr. White off of my ignore list. Yawn....

[Famspear]

Meanwhile, back at the forum at losthorizons dot com, the Peter Hendrickson-Cracking the Code tax scam web site, there have been no postings since January 3rd.

[.]

Meanwhile, back at the forum at losthorizons dot com, the Peter Hendrickson-Cracking the Code tax scam web site, there have been no postings since January 3rd.

It's probably hard, in view of the multitude of criminal TP guru convictions in the last 10 years to cough up even a luke-warm post when you're debating the relative merits of being a warrior versus being incarcerated for 25 or 50 or 100+ months.

Perhaps it depends on how much income you're failed to report. You know, the "tax loss" thing in the federal sentencing guidelines. Although, considering the relatively small sums most of these guys futz around with, maybe they've just plain given up for a while.

[Weston White]

Well for such a small group of supposed office professionals, many of you were surely up pretty late for a random hump day night.

Regardless as to the why, the first pointless reply was made 2-hours and 52-minutes into my reply and then a second even more pointless reply was made 49-minutes thereafter. As to the subsequent many posts made, those are all just as pointless as the first two posts made in reply to my own two originating posts.

Ergo, not a one of you (thus far having posted), although having perhaps read the CFT, have weighed any serious consideration to its content. Also to clarify to “wserra”, that is not a thesis (let alone being “central”), but is a statement of support for what is the synthesis of the CFT, which is more adequately to state as being the purposeful and negligent misapplication of the federal income tax upon an individual's acquisition of capital or otherwise their right to subsist -such may not be taxed at the whim of our national government, all means of ‘direct taxation’ requires exigent circumstance, regardless if apportionment be required or not (i.e., XVI Amendment).

Unlike you denizen administrators on this “Quatloos” Website I am wholly capable of backing my statements; as both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

I am merely noting my observations; that is all.

[The Observer]

Unlike you denizen administrators on this “Quatloos” Website I am wholly capable of backing my statements; as both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

Then please explain why Pete Hendrickson lost his appeal if the law and facts are supportive of your claims.

[Pottapaug1938]

Well for such a small group of supposed office professionals, many of you were surely up pretty late for a random hump day night.

Regardless as to the why, the first pointless reply was made 2-hours and 52-minutes into my reply and then a second even more pointless reply was made 49-minutes thereafter. As to the subsequent many posts made, those are all just as pointless as the first two posts made in reply to my own two originating posts.

Ergo, not a one of you (thus far having posted), although having perhaps read the CFT, have weighed any serious consideration to its content. Also to clarify to “wserra”, that is not a thesis (let alone being “central”), but is a statement of support for what is the synthesis of the CFT, which is more adequately to state as being the purposeful and negligent misapplication of the federal income tax upon an individual's acquisition of capital or otherwise their right to subsist -such may not be taxed at the whim of our national government, all means of ‘direct taxation’ requires exigent circumstance, regardless if apportionment be required or not (i.e., XVI Amendment).

Unlike you denizen administrators on this “Quatloos” Website I am wholly capable of backing my statements; as both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

I am merely noting my observations; that is all.

Prove it, bucko. Show us at least one appellate case where your hypotheses have been upheld and not reversed by a higher court, and then we'll bother responding in greater detail. Not until then.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Well for such a small group of supposed office professionals, many of you were surely up pretty late for a random hump day night.

You do know that the Internet is not confined to your nation, do you not, Mr. White?

Unlike you denizen administrators on this “Quatloos” Website I am wholly capable of backing my statements; as both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

I am merely noting my observations; that is all.

Why am I hearing echoes of the claims that chain letters make, trying to sway readers into believing that they are "legal" based on what some fictitious attorney or misinterpreted law supposedly said about them?

Weston, a finger is not supposed to be stuffed up ones' own nose to the fifth joint. Please extract yours and let your cerebrum get the oxygen it needs.

[wserra]

both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

Accordingly, we affirm Hendrickson's convictions

Hmm. Cognitive dissonance.

[jg]

<snip>
Ergo, not a one of you (thus far having posted), although having perhaps read the CFT, have weighed any serious consideration to its content. Also to clarify to “wserra”, that is not a thesis (let alone being “central”), but is a statement of support for what is the synthesis of the CFT, which is more adequately to state as being the purposeful and negligent misapplication of the federal income tax upon an individual's acquisition of capital or otherwise their right to subsist -such may not be taxed at the whim of our national government, all means of ‘direct taxation’ requires exigent circumstance, regardless if apportionment be required or not (i.e., XVI Amendment).

Unlike you denizen administrators on this “Quatloos” Website I am wholly capable of backing my statements; as both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

I am merely noting my observations; that is all.

Then please do so for the claim that "such may not be taxed at the whim of our national government, all means of ‘direct taxation’ requires exigent circumstance, regardless if apportionment be required or not (i.e., XVI Amendment)."

What facts and law are supportive of the bolded portion?

But, please keep it brief.

[Quixote]

all means of ‘direct taxation’ requires exigent circumstance

This is the first I have heard of an "exigent circumstance" clause in the constitution. I won't waste legal scholar Weston White's time by asking him to point out where I could find that clause in the constitution. I'm sure I've just overlooked it. I am curious, though, and would like to ask historian Weston White to explain the exigent circumstance that caused the Committee on ways and means to propose a direct tax on land for $750,000 in its April 17, 1794 report to the House.

[LPC]

Has WW really come back to bitch about messages posted on January 11?

both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

And am I the only one puzzled about how facts or law can support logic?

Facts and logic appear to me to be two different things. Facts can't support logic any more than facts can support mathematics or philosophy.

Similarly, logic can support law, but law doesn't support logic, because you can't legislate logic any more than you can legislate the value of pi.

What WW probably meant was that facts and logic support his *conclusions.* That statement would be coherent, but it would be wrong.

[LPC]

Ergo, not a one of you (thus far having posted), although having perhaps read the CFT, have weighed any serious consideration to its content.

[snip]

Unlike you denizen administrators on this “Quatloos” Website I am wholly capable of backing my statements; as both the facts and law are as supportive to my logic as they are to my cause.

Okay, I'll play WW's silly game.

From his CFT, under "Exactly, what are 'incomes' as intended by the XVI Amendment?", on page 6/12:

1. WW quotes from several Supreme Court decisions the definition of "income" as the "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined...." (Emphasis added.) Then says nothing about why workers derive no gain from their own labor.

2. WW observes that "incomes" within the XVI Amendment "implies a strict sense within a specified application," which is pure bullshit without any legal, logical, or historical support.

3. WW then states, in the last paragraph on the page (and the last paragraph in that section), that "The tax being levied upon 'incomes' as meant within the XVI Amendment is not upon the source itself (i.e., one's remuneration), but upon the realized 'gain', 'profit', or 'income' deriving therefrom." (Emphasis in original.) The suggestion that "one's remuneration" is a "source" and not "income" within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is wrong, unsupported by facts, law, or logic, and completely contradicted by numerous Supreme Court, Circuit Court, and District Court opinions.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome for numerous examples of courts holding that wages (i.e., remuneration for labor) are indeed income.

In short, WW has many ways of restating his conclusions, but there are no facts or logic supporting any of his conclusions.

[Arthur Rubin]

all means of ‘direct taxation’ requires exigent circumstance

This is the first I have heard of an "exigent circumstance" clause in the constitution.

Well, there is such a clause in case law related to the 4th Amendment. It is conceivable that there might be such a clause in case law related to "direct taxation", although, in fact, there isn't.

[Quixote]

3. WW then states, in the last paragraph on the page (and the last paragraph in that section), that "The tax being levied upon 'incomes' as meant within the XVI Amendment is not upon the source itself (i.e., one's remuneration), but upon the realized 'gain', 'profit', or 'income' deriving therefrom." (Emphasis in original.) The suggestion that "one's remuneration" is a "source" and not "income" within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is wrong, unsupported by facts, law, or logic, and completely contradicted by numerous Supreme Court, Circuit Court, and District Court opinions.

Even if you concede WW's point that the "income derived from wages" means income from investment of wages, his ultimate conclusion is still wrong, because gross income includes all income from whatever source derived. Wages, i.e., income derived from labor, is included in gross income. WW is correct that the income tax does not tax the source, which is why, contrary to much TP rhetoric, labor itself is not the subject of the tax.

[wserra]

I doubt this will come as a shock to anyone, but Weston has lost it.

I came across a post he made to his own board - Weston writes 68% (740 of 1090) of the posts on his board - that goes as follows:

So get this, to further add insult to injury, today I visited the forum of that over-weirdly Quatlost Website and to my shock they have -in addition to a prior occassion were they had publicly posting my IP address more than once on their forum (in violation of their own 'terms of use' policies) and limited my daily posts to just five (5)- altered my user profile with the following:

Occupation: Working for the government, while pretending the entire time to be completely against the government. I accomplish this simply by engaging in projects to convince others that I would never under any circumstances dare work the government, especially the federal government! As you can see such a strategy serves to be quite effective.

Interests: Destroying liberty, preventing all forms of freedom, removing the word “inalienable rights” from all dictionaries and reference materials. You get the geste of my only true interests in this pointless, pathetic excuse of a so-called existence.

Really, have this imbeciles nothing better to do? Geez!

(1) The IP address of someone's board is hardly a secret. Anyone who wishes can find Q's in a minute or two.

(2) No one limited Weston's posts to five. I searched both the admin and mod logs. It never happened, at least since the board's last implosion - which was years before Weston's post.

(3) No one altered Weston's profile. I searched both the admin and mod logs. It never happened, at least since the board's last implosion - which was years before Weston's post. Not that it was necessary to search, because no one here would do that.

Oh, and his forum is no longer "CTCWarrior" - now it's "iWarrior". Rats and sinking ships.

[Dezcad]

Oh, and his forum is no longer "CTCWarrior" - now it's "iWarrior". Rats and sinking ships.

He is at least getting closer to an appropriate name for his board. He now has the correct first letter and now only needs to get the other four letters correct.

[webhick]

No shock that he's making shit up. I know this not only because of the reasons that Wes listed, but also because none of our regulars would misuse the word "geste."

Also, I don't recall anyone posting his IP (which is different from his board IP). I'm not even sure we said he worked for the government.

Oh, and his forum is no longer "CTCWarrior" - now it's "iWarrior". Rats and sinking ships.

Apple isn't going to like that.

[wserra]

Oh, and his forum is no longer "CTCWarrior" - now it's "iWarrior". Rats and sinking ships.

Apple isn't going to like that.

Hadn't thought of that. Were Weston anything more than an amusing but otherwise insignificant flyspeck, Apple - which is quite aggressive about protecting its trademarks - might actually do something.

[webhick]

Oh, and his forum is no longer "CTCWarrior" - now it's "iWarrior". Rats and sinking ships.

Apple isn't going to like that.

Hadn't thought of that. Were Weston anything more than an amusing but otherwise insignificant flyspeck, Apple - which is quite aggressive about protecting its trademarks - might actually do something.

I don't know. Let's find out!