Pottapaug1938 , Lpc, and Framspear Is this crap?

[Jameson3171]

It is quite clear to me that all 3 of you are nothing more than manipulating in creating your misconceptions about the income tax laws! Instead of locking me out of this form! Explain yourselves! Watch this video! This video backs up my beliefs! Totally discredited your beliefs!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCPLOGftFuw

Go to 18:20 on the video, Edwin Vieira, Jr. and respond to that statement You magnificent three! And before you even claim that he just making this up let me show you the credentials of Edwin Vieira.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.

[Jeffrey]

Half the people in that video are or went to jail for not paying taxes.

Please stop getting your tax advise from conmen and criminals.

You got an explanation of why your arguments were incorrect, the judge at your tax case won't even have to do that, he'll just call your arguments frivolous and slap a $5,000 penalty on top of what you already owe.

Getting angry at the people on this board is not a productive use of your energy.

[nattyb]

Viera is wrong. The definition of income is from the Stratton Independence case.
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. That is the classic case of bait and switch. Don't be duped.

[Jameson3171]

Half the people in that video are or went to jail for not paying taxes.

Please stop getting your tax advise from conmen and criminals.

You got an explanation of why your arguments were incorrect, the judge at your tax case won't even have to do that, he'll just call your arguments frivolous and slap a $5,000 penalty on top of what you already owe.

Getting angry at the people on this board is not a productive use of your energy.

Really! In 2004, Banister was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States[1] and various counts of willfully aiding, assisting counseling and procuring the filing of a false amended income tax return[2] in connection with his alleged assistance of a client, Walter Allen Thompson.[3] Thompson owned and operated Cencal, an aviation and flight bag manufacturing business. Cencal employed a number of hourly wage workers who were predominantly seamstresses, production workers and office workers. In July 2000, Thompson removed all of the employees from the taxpayer rolls by no longer withholding employment taxes from wages and salaries, by not filing Forms 941, and by not providing employees or the IRS with annual wage or other income statements, Forms W-2 or 1099.

Thompson was charged numerous tax-related offenses. On January 28, 2005, he was found guilty of two counts of knowingly filing false claims against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 287, ten counts of willful failure to collect and turn over taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and one count of willfully filing a false income tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206.[4] Thompson was acquitted on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371.[5] Thompson was sentenced to serve 72 months in prison and was fined $7,500.[6] The case against Banister continued, and Banister was eventually acquitted of the charges against him.[7]

Has not been in jail.

Edwin Vieira, Jr. Are you just a moronic fool?

Former IRS agent who quit and challenge the Federal Income Tax - John Turner. Nope has not been in jail!

All you must be referring to Sherry Peel Jackson! Filing her income tax returns. But you know that a jury convicted her. Tom cryer and other have not been convicted by a jury for the same exact reason.

So tell me oh great one who else in the video has been to jail other than her? Again yet just manipulating and creating a misconception illusion. Ronald Reagan was in jail I do know that!

[Jameson3171]

Viera is wrong. The definition of income is from the Stratton Independence case.
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. That is the classic case of bait and switch. Don't be duped.

That has to be the most moronic thing that anybody ever said. Edwin Vieira, Jr is wrong! Really! Enlighten me with your credentials?

[Jameson3171]

Half the people in that video are or went to jail for not paying taxes.

Please stop getting your tax advise from conmen and criminals.

You got an explanation of why your arguments were incorrect, the judge at your tax case won't even have to do that, he'll just call your arguments frivolous and slap a $5,000 penalty on top of what you already owe.

Getting angry at the people on this board is not a productive use of your energy.

I am not going to court you don't even know how the system works! Can you just know what you're talking about before you comment! Obviously you have no clue!

[Jeffrey]

You said you filed an appeal in the other thread concerning some taxes owed.

So based on your own statements, it does in fact appear you're going in that direction.

[Jameson3171]

Half the people in that video are or went to jail for not paying taxes.

Please stop getting your tax advise from conmen and criminals.

You got an explanation of why your arguments were incorrect, the judge at your tax case won't even have to do that, he'll just call your arguments frivolous and slap a $5,000 penalty on top of what you already owe.

Getting angry at the people on this board is not a productive use of your energy.

What half of people are you talking about? Stop blowing smoke up my ass, it tickles!

[Famspear]

Viera is wrong. The definition of income is from the Stratton Independence case.
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. That is the classic case of bait and switch. Don't be duped.

That has to be the most moronic thing that anybody ever said. Edwin Vieira, Jr is wrong! Really! Enlighten me with your credentials?

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. Neither the Stratton court nor any other federal court has ever ruled that income is limited to corporate gain or profit.

[obadiah]

Half the people in that video are or went to jail for not paying taxes.

Please stop getting your tax advise from conmen and criminals.

You got an explanation of why your arguments were incorrect, the judge at your tax case won't even have to do that, he'll just call your arguments frivolous and slap a $5,000 penalty on top of what you already owe.

Getting angry at the people on this board is not a productive use of your energy.

I am not going to court you don't even know how the system works! Can you just know what you're talking about before you comment! Obviously you have no clue!

Screeching louder and louder convinces nobody.

Give something verifiable or admit you don't have anything.
I can claim that I attended all of your "hearings" and "meetings" with tax officials and that you are not even close to telling the truth. Unverifiable. Prove me wrong to my satisfaction or admit I was telling truth.

See how easy it is if you provide nothing anyone can check?

[Famspear]

Jamey's link at the beginning of the thread is yet another link to the Aaron Russo masterpiece, America: Freedom from Fascism.

Duuuhhhhhhhhhh......

[nattyb]

Viera is wrong. The definition of income is from the Stratton Independence case.
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. That is the classic case of bait and switch. Don't be duped.

That has to be the most moronic thing that anybody ever said. Edwin Vieira, Jr is wrong! Really! Enlighten me with your credentials?

Yes, he is wrong. He misquoted Merchant's Loan. Smart people sometimes don't know logic. Irwin Schiff is a self confessed snake oil salesman. I have argued with all of these guys.

Sorry, jameson, you just don't have the prerequisite knowledge to know you are being duped.

[Jameson3171]

You said you filed an appeal in the other thread concerning some taxes owed.

So based on your own statements, it does in fact appear you're going in that direction.

NO! Tax court is not in the future! The Appeals office Procedure Has to refute my claims, They have not refuted anything and this is been going on for over seven years. Watch this video It is short. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj_PTqtzqro This guy is not crockpot nor a wacko.

[Jameson3171]

Viera is wrong. The definition of income is from the Stratton Independence case.
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. That is the classic case of bait and switch. Don't be duped.

That has to be the most moronic thing that anybody ever said. Edwin Vieira, Jr is wrong! Really! Enlighten me with your credentials?

Yes, he is wrong. He misquoted Merchant's Loan. Smart people sometimes don't know logic. Irwin Schiff is a self confessed snake oil salesman. I have argued with all of these guys.

Sorry, jameson, you just don't have the prerequisite knowledge to know you are being duped.

[AndyK]

NO! Tax court is not in the future! The Appeals office Procedure Has to refute my claims, They have not refuted anything and this is been going on for over seven years.

Appeals doesn't have to "refute" anything. All they have to do is accept or deny your appeal.

[Famspear]

You said you filed an appeal in the other thread concerning some taxes owed.

So based on your own statements, it does in fact appear you're going in that direction.

NO! Tax court is not in the future! The Appeals office Procedure Has to refute my claims, They have not refuted anything and this is been going on for over seven years. Watch this video It is short. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj_PTqtzqro This guy is not crockpot nor a wacko.

I watched about the first three second of the video you linked.

That was Aaron Russo.

And yes, he was a crackpot.

It's sad, because he was a fine filmmaker.

We've already been through this.

And no, the IRS Appeals Office does not have to "refute" anything.

[Famspear]

It is quite clear to me that all 3 of you are nothing more than manipulating in creating your misconceptions about the income tax laws! Instead of locking me out of this form! Explain yourselves! Watch this video! This video backs up my beliefs! Totally discredited your beliefs!

No, it is not clear to you that the "3 of us" are manipulating anything. And no, we have no misconceptions about the income tax laws. We know the law. You do not.

You are simply angry and frustrated because you are impotent on this subject.

And, you cite, as your authorities, none other than Aaron Russo and his cast. THAT FILM WAS RELEASED ABOUT NINE YEARS AGO. Did you not realize that Russo's film was the laughingstock of everyone here all those years ago?

Did you really believe that Schiff and Banister and Jackson and Turner, etc., were really competent authorities on federal tax law? Did you really not know that these people were discredited years ago? Don't you think we already know who these people are?

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/irwin-schiff

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/john-turner

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/joseph-banister

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/sherry-jackson

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/tommy-cryer

Do you understand how long the regulars here have been studying these and other tax protesters, and cases like Brushaber? Do you really believe that you have something to "teach" the rest of us?

I am an attorney and a certified public accountant. I began studying tax law in the late 1970s. I have written articles on U.S. federal income taxation that have been published. I have been dealing with the IRS at various levels for over 24 years. I have dealt with IRS Revenue Agents (the "auditors"), Revenue Officers (the collections folks), Appeals Officers, Special Agents (the folks who carry badges and firearms and have the power to arrest you), and IRS attorneys (the folks who represent the IRS in U.S. Tax Court). Some others here have the same or more experience than I do.

You obviously cannot compose a coherent argument about federal tax law. How do you expect to defeat the Internal Revenue Service? Do you really believe that you're fooling someone here?

[LPC]

It is quite clear to me that all 3 of you are nothing more than manipulating in creating your misconceptions about the income tax laws! Instead of locking me out of this form! Explain yourselves!

I have explained myself. Many times.

And I back up my explanations with citations to actual court decisions, and not videos by dead film producers.

[LPC]

Viera is wrong. The definition of income is from the Stratton Independence case.
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Income is not limited to corporate gain or profit. That is the classic case of bait and switch. Don't be duped.

That has to be the most moronic thing that anybody ever said. Edwin Vieira, Jr is wrong! Really!

Yes, really.

And I can cite many court opinions to support what I say. For example:

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations....” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

Now it's your turn. You either find a case that supports what you claim, or you shut up.

[fortinbras]

In at least one tax case, Vieira was rejected as an expert witness:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 8411417089

Vieira's maverick views have been sucked up by a multitude of tax dodgers, but rejected by the courts and the vast majority of tax law experts.