Tax Court, Schmax Court . . .
XCobraJock
"I just got a note from someone who just went to a 'Collections Due
Process' hearing (a.k.a. CDP hearing). The IRS told them ahead
of time that they would NOT have the meeting if the person
insisted on recording it. Sound familiar? Sure enough, the person
brought recording equipment, and the IRS refused to have the
meeting.
"Federal law specifically says that ANY employee of the IRS,
conducting ANY in-person meeting with ANYONE, regarding
the collection or determination of any tax, is to allow them to
record it (26 USC § 7521). I'm not sure how much more obvious
the law could have been. Nonetheless, IRS Appeals came up with
a 'policy' a while back that they would NOT allow ANYONE to
record ANY meeting with the Appeals division. The IRS
arguments for why 26 USC § 7521 doesn't apply to the Appeals
Division were (I gotta say it) patently frivolous.
"As you may recall, the Tax Court recently declared the 'policy' to
be contrary to the law, saying that Appeals MUST allow people to
record all such meetings. In fact, I believe the ENTIRE Tax Court
ruled that together, not just one 'judge.' Nonetheless, the IRS is
sticking to their 'policy.' (They are trying to appeal the Tax Court
decision, but I suspect they will get thrashed by every court,
because Section 7521 is crystal clear in what it means.)
"I find the situation interesting for several reasons:
"1) It's amusing that the IRS is this desperate to do their dirty deeds
behind closed doors, off the record, and without witnesses. Could
it be they have something to hide? (Of course they do, or they'd be
obeying the law.)
"2) Not only do I bet that the IRS will lose on appeal anyway, but
EVERY individual case of a CDP hearing where they prohibit
recording, all the person has to do is refuse to have a meeting off
the record, and petition Tax Court afterwards, to have the Tax
Court send it back ordering the IRS to allow it to be recorded. (If
you allow the meeting to happen without recording it, and THEN
complain, you will probably NOT get to have the meeting again.)
"3) But best of all, what does this say about the IRS' view of the
Tax Court? It shows, beyond any doubt, they that DO NOT
consider Tax Court rulings to be binding precedent. Next time the
IRS mentions any Tax Court ruling about the 861 evidence, I
highly suggest a response like this: 'Wait, which court ruled that?
Wasn't that the same guys who ruled that the IRS must allow
Appeals meetings to be recorded... which the IRS still refuses
to do?'
"Tax Court rulings are what the IRS most often cites when
responding to the 861 evidence. Trouble is, the Internal Revenue
Manual specifically says that 'Decisions made by lower courts,
such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding
on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years
litigated' (IRM § 4.10.7.2.9.8). Well now we have a perfect
example of that.
"(By the way, a little while back part 4.2 of the IRM became 4.10,
and as a result a lot of people have had trouble finding some of
the IRM quotes I cite. This link will show you what the IRS
considers binding (i.e. statutes, regulations, Supreme Court
rulings) and what they don't (i.e. EVERYTHING else):
http://www.irs.gov/irm/page/0,,id%3D21504,00.html
"Once again, the IRS' propaganda campaign is falling apart. They
just openly 'dissed' the pseudo-court which they MOST rely on
when it comes to the 861 evidence. Oops."
"--Larken Rose
lar...@taxableincome.net
http://www.theft-by-deception.com"
--XCobraJock
Geoffrey F. Green
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Tax Court rulings are what the IRS most often cites when
> responding to the 861 evidence. Trouble is, the Internal Revenue
> Manual specifically says that 'Decisions made by lower courts,
> such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding
> on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years
> litigated' (IRM § 4.10.7.2.9.8). Well now we have a perfect
> example of that.
Both those points fall under the category of "Duh!" It may be the
case that most (though certainly not all) of the 861 cases cited as
precedent are in tax court (or in the U.S. district court), but that's
because most of these folks aren't willing to try press their case in
an appeal. And it's also no surprise that the IRS doesn't consider
itself bound by court decisions outside the appeals' court geographic
region; if you take a lesson in the structure of the federal court
system, you'll see why the IRS (like other federal agencies) basically
has to, unless they want the first appeals court to consider the issue
to always control.
You might also learn the difference between "binding precedent" and
"persuasive precedent." A district court in California isn't going to
consider itself bound by any other district court or the tax court,
but it's going to find pretty persuasive the fact that every judge to
consider the issue has rejected the claim. Telling the judge "'Wait,
which court ruled that? Wasn't that the same guys who ruled that the
IRS must allow Appeals meetings to be recorded... which the IRS still
refuses to do" will result in a response to the effect of "yes, but
that's irrelevant, interesting but irrelevant, and anyway what about
those Appellate Courts reaching the same conclusion"?
- geoff
--
Visit http://PostingUp.net
All college basketball, no Andy Katz
Toto
HowEVER you rationalize it, there can be no other reason for IRS
reluctance to be recorded than their fear of having their behavior
ACCURATELY noticed by a larger audience. Interesting. ANY honest
system being operated by honest people will have NO problem with
EVERYTHING they do being recorded by ALL parties. Every action
performed by the IRS SHOULD be a matter of public record.
Unwillingness to facilitate transparency in domestic government
actions is nothing more than a sign of perfidy on the part of those
who fear such records. Spaghetti logic laws and rulings are best
protected by non-disclosure.
XCobraJock
tax court decisions, why do they matter for anyone else?
If the IRS can ignore its own regulations, despite having
been told by tax court that they are bound by them, then
why would anyone else think tax court trumps what the
regulations say under 861?
--XCobraJock
"Geoffrey F. Green" <gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote in message
news:gfg-usenet-7268D...@reader1.news.rcn.net...
Geoffrey F. Green
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I don't understand your point. If the IRS is not bound by
> tax court decisions, why do they matter for anyone else?
> If the IRS can ignore its own regulations, despite having
> been told by tax court that they are bound by them, then
> why would anyone else think tax court trumps what the
> regulations say under 861?
Let me address it from the district court perspective, and then make a
point about the tax court later on. The IRS *is* bound by a district
court decision in a particular case. Therefore, if there's a case in
the district court and the IRS is ordered to pay you $1000, then the
IRS is bound by that. Likewise, if the district court were to order
the IRS to, say, implement some changes in their computer systems
(sort of like the district court in D.C. has ordered the Dept. of the
Interior to secure its computer system from internet hackers), then
the IRS would be bound by that order, although those generally
wouldn't arise in your garden-variety tax dispute. But if the court
is merely providing a legal interpretation (for example, that 26 USC
7521 imposes certain requirements on the IRS), then while the IRS has
to obey in that case, it is not so bound in other cases and is free to
continue its practice and relitigate the issue.
Likewise, if an appeals court declares some IRS practice unlawful,
then the IRS is bound within the appeals court's jurisdiction but not
elsewhere. The IRS can continue with the challenged practice in other
jurisdictions (of course, it can of its own accord decide to comply
with the court's order nationwide). The IRS' goal in that case, if
it's a policy the IRS considers important, is to get another appeals
court to hold otherwise and get the Supreme Court to take the appeal.
Now, I'm admittedly less knowledgable about the tax court, but I'd
assume the general rule applies there too. I don't even know if there
is an appeals tax court, or if appeals go to a district court, and if
that's the case, I don't know what the rule is for when precedent is
binding on the IRS. I assume the IRS follows the same geographic
rule, but I'm just guessing. Also note I'm not certain what tax court
rulings are at issue here, so I'm just discussing the issue generally
and not in reference to any particular cases.
Toto
<gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote:
>In article <HUiWa.11659$dE3....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand your point. If the IRS is not bound by
>> tax court decisions, why do they matter for anyone else?
>> If the IRS can ignore its own regulations, despite having
>> been told by tax court that they are bound by them, then
>> why would anyone else think tax court trumps what the
>> regulations say under 861?
>
>Let me address it from the district court perspective, and then make a
>point about the tax court later on. The IRS *is* bound by a district
>court decision in a particular case. Therefore, if there's a case in
>the district court and the IRS is ordered to pay you $1000, then the
>IRS is bound by that. Likewise, if the district court were to order
>the IRS to, say, implement some changes in their computer systems
>(sort of like the district court in D.C. has ordered the Dept. of the
>Interior to secure its computer system from internet hackers), then
>the IRS would be bound by that order, although those generally
>wouldn't arise in your garden-variety tax dispute. But if the court
>is merely providing a legal interpretation (for example, that 26 USC
>7521 imposes certain requirements on the IRS), then while the IRS has
>to obey in that case, it is not so bound in other cases and is free to
>continue its practice and relitigate the issue.
Why? If a court that has jurisdiction over the IRS tells the IRS that
they must stop or start doing this or that, why are they ONLY required
to do so for the parties to THAT particular case?
>Likewise, if an appeals court declares some IRS practice unlawful,
>then the IRS is bound within the appeals court's jurisdiction but not
>elsewhere.
Again, WHY? I'd really like to hear why it makes sense for a ruling
in the ?th District to not apply to all other districts until altered
by the SC
>The IRS can continue with the challenged practice in other
>jurisdictions (of course, it can of its own accord decide to comply
>with the court's order nationwide).
Does this also mean that if a private individual or company is ruled
against in a particular district, that they may ignore that ruling in
other districts? What's good for the goose is good for the gander,
eh?
>The IRS' goal in that case, if it's a policy the IRS considers important, is to get another appeals
>court to hold otherwise and get the Supreme Court to take the appeal.
Isn't that called "venue shopping"?
>Now, I'm admittedly less knowledgable about the tax court, but I'd
>assume the general rule applies there too. I don't even know if there
>is an appeals tax court, or if appeals go to a district court, and if
>that's the case, I don't know what the rule is for when precedent is
>binding on the IRS. I assume the IRS follows the same geographic
>rule, but I'm just guessing. Also note I'm not certain what tax court
>rulings are at issue here, so I'm just discussing the issue generally
>and not in reference to any particular cases.
Man, I like that "geographic rule". If it applies to the IRS, then it
should apply to EVERYONE.
XCobraJock
If the IRS is not bound by tax court decisions, why would they matter
to anyone else?
If the IRS is not bound by their own regulations (how absurd do
you want to get?) even after their OWN COURT told them
to comply with them, then why would ANYONE ELSE conclude
that a tax court ruling trumps the regulations under 861?
Why should ANYONE conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Dan Evans conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Larken Rose conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Paul Thomas conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Michael Enz conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Dale Eastman conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Billy Roy Malloy conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Roger Reynolds conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Scott Senate conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
Why should Howard A. Dawson, Jr. conclude that a tax court ruling trumps the
regulations under 861?
--XCobraJock
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:oljjiv4jl9t55aub9...@4ax.com...
Dave Woods, EA
gfg-usenet-ABD47...@reader1.news.rcn.net, "Geoffrey F. Green"
<gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote:
> Now, I'm admittedly less knowledgable about the tax court, but I'd
> assume the general rule applies there too. I don't even know if there
> is an appeals tax court, or if appeals go to a district court, and if
> that's the case, I don't know what the rule is for when precedent is
> binding on the IRS. I assume the IRS follows the same geographic
> rule, but I'm just guessing. Also note I'm not certain what tax court
> rulings are at issue here, so I'm just discussing the issue generally
> and not in reference to any particular cases.
>
> - geoff
Tax Court appeals go to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Circuit the Tax
Court case comes out of. The same precedential rules apply to Tax Court
cases based on Circuit Court jurisdictions as they do to District Court. By
the way, District Court also appeals to the Circuit Courts. Therefore a Tax
Court case in the First Circuit based on prior ruling in that circuit than
it might have in the Ninth Circuit if the Ninth has ruled differently or not
at all. Similarly, the IRS is bound by circuit court decisions when made,
but only in the circuits where the issue has been heard.
Case in point, there is an issue I looked at recently where seven circuits
have ruled on an issue, five in one direction, two in the other, with the
First Circuit which would govern the issue for me not having heard a case on
the matter.
--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109
Postings here are general information only and not to be relied upon as
advice.
OnryAnRkst
>there is an issue I looked at recently where seven circuits
>have ruled on an issue, five in one direction, two in the other, with the
>First Circuit which would govern the issue for me not having heard a case on
>the matter.
Good thing we have this "system" or else there'd be ANARCHY, and we CAN'T HAVE
THAT!
--OnryAnRkst
Dave Woods, EA
20030731232629...@mb-m21.aol.com, "OnryAnRkst"
<onrya...@aol.com> wrote:
And of course you could easily explain why any issue in the Circuit for
California could possibly have any relevance for me in Massachusetts.
OnryAnRkst
>And of course you could easily explain why any issue in the Circuit for
>California could possibly have any relevance for me in Massachusetts.
Sure makes sense, huh!
--OnryAnRkst
PaulMaf
>Date: 7/31/03 8:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <HVkWa.2749$_i1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>
>If the IRS is not bound by their own regulations (how absurd do
>you want to get?) even after their OWN COURT
There is no "OWN COURT", you idiot. The IRS does not have a court of its own.
Tax court is not the IRS' own court.
Tax court is a court duly created by the Congress under its Constitional
powers, and only given jurisdiction over tax disputes.
>told them
>to comply with them, then why would ANYONE ELSE conclude
>that a tax court ruling trumps the regulations under 861?
It is not only Tax court that has ruled against you morons on your ridiculous
861 argument. So has every district court before whom the silly argument has
been made.
It is utterly amazing how you tax protesor morons can ignore a 90 year history
of every court that has ever dealt with anyone of your moroninc arguments has
without exception ruled them to be nonsense; sent some of your fellow
proponents of these inanities to jail collected the taxes due plus enormous
penalties and interest.
Still you blather without end.
I know you boobs don't like to hear it but that is a sure sign that you are
either morons or insane or a combinaion of the two.
You, Oinky, in particular disply both traits strongly with your constant
picturing of a fantasy world that cannot successfully exist; your perfect world
of anarchy.
Geoffrey F. Green
Toto <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
Well, if it's a lawsuit about, say, the way in which the IRS sends out
rebate checks, such as a class action, then the court's order would be
binding on the IRS everywhere. See the news reports of the Dep't of
the Interior Indian cases for an example. But if it's an
interpretation of a statute -- whether this statute requires 30 days
notice in such-and-such circumstance, for example -- then the IRS is
only bound in that case.
It is an exception for government actors. In a lawsuit involving
private litigatns, if a district court makes a particular
interpretation of a statute, it's of course not binding on any other
private litigants. However, there's only one government agency. If
not for the exception, then the first court to address the issue would
have the power to bind the IRS, and the normal appeals process would
break down. Among other things, the Supreme Court would essentially
never hear any tax-related appeals, because there'd be no way to get a
circuit split.
> >Likewise, if an appeals court declares some IRS practice unlawful,
> >then the IRS is bound within the appeals court's jurisdiction but not
> >elsewhere.
>
> Again, WHY? I'd really like to hear why it makes sense for a ruling
> in the ?th District to not apply to all other districts until altered
> by the SC
See above.
> >The IRS can continue with the challenged practice in other
> >jurisdictions (of course, it can of its own accord decide to comply
> >with the court's order nationwide).
>
> Does this also mean that if a private individual or company is ruled
> against in a particular district, that they may ignore that ruling in
> other districts? What's good for the goose is good for the gander,
> eh?
Well, no. See above. But that's not to say that can't necessarily
happen. A company or individual could be held liable for fraud in
jurisdiction A and not liable in jurisdiction B even though both cases
involve the same basic fact pattern.
> >The IRS' goal in that case, if it's a policy the IRS considers important, is
> >to get another appeals
> >court to hold otherwise and get the Supreme Court to take the appeal.
>
> Isn't that called "venue shopping"?
Venue shopping is when you move a case against a particular litigant
around until you find a favorable venue. That's not what's happening
here.
> >Now, I'm admittedly less knowledgable about the tax court, but I'd
> >assume the general rule applies there too. I don't even know if there
> >is an appeals tax court, or if appeals go to a district court, and if
> >that's the case, I don't know what the rule is for when precedent is
> >binding on the IRS. I assume the IRS follows the same geographic
> >rule, but I'm just guessing. Also note I'm not certain what tax court
> >rulings are at issue here, so I'm just discussing the issue generally
> >and not in reference to any particular cases.
>
> Man, I like that "geographic rule". If it applies to the IRS, then it
> should apply to EVERYONE.
- geoff
XCobraJock
"Geoffrey F. Green" <gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote in message
news:gfg-usenet-ED070...@reader1.news.rcn.net...
> Well, no. See above. But that's not to say that can't necessarily
> happen. A company or individual could be held liable for fraud in
> jurisdiction A and not liable in jurisdiction B even though both cases
> involve the same basic fact pattern.
Fraud can be wrong in one part of the country and not in another?
--XCobraJock
Geoffrey F. Green
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Certain actions can be considered fraud in one part of the country and
not elsewhere. Remember that for cases like fraud, you're generally
dealing with state law, and each state has different fraud laws (both
common law fraud, and "statutory" fraud). So your behavior may be
considered fraudulent in State A but not State B. And, if different
people are bringing suit, it's certainly possible that one state court
in State A might find liability, while another state court in State A
wouldn't find liability, again given the same fact patterns.
In addition, given the same fact patterns, it's certainly possible a
federal court in New York could find that a company did violate law
with respect to employee A who brought the suit, while a federal court
in California could find that a company did not violate the same law
with respect to employee B who also brought a suit. The potential for
inconsistent adjudication is one of the reasons that the class action
mechanism was developed.
Dan Evans
wrote:
>If the IRS is not bound by
>tax court decisions, why do they matter for anyone else?
The IRS *is* bound by Tax Court decisions. If the Tax Court rules in
favor of a taxpayer, the IRS MUST follow that decision for that
taxpayer (or appeal the decision).
The IRS can also relitigate the same issue with other taxpayers, but
it runs the risk of both losing (because the court is probably going
to rule the same way again) and being sanctioned if the court decides
that there was no "substantial justification" for its position.
Similarly, you can (if you want) continue to claim that section 861
exempts your income from tax, but you will lose and be sanctioned,
because too many courts have already ruled against you on that issue.
>If the IRS can ignore its own regulations,
You're assuming that IRS regulations have the bizarre and twisted
meaning you have attributed to them.
>despite having
>been told by tax court that they are bound by them, then
>why would anyone else think tax court trumps what the
>regulations say under 861?
Because the Tax Court (or some court) is ultimately going to be
confronted with the question of whether or not to affirm the
deficiency against you, or allow the levy against your property to
continue, or deny your refund request, or put you in jail, and EVERY
court that has considered the "861 argument" has dismissed it as
frivolous or ridiculous.
The bottom line is that, as fervently as you might believe that black
is really white, the courts are not obliged to follow your beliefs and
are allowed to rule that white is actually white, and the regulations
do NOT mean what you have convinced yourself that they mean.
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
Dan Evans
<gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote:
>Likewise, if an appeals court declares some IRS practice unlawful,
>then the IRS is bound within the appeals court's jurisdiction but not
>elsewhere.
I don't think it is quite accurate to say that the IRS is "bound" by
an appeals court decision. Such a decision is often referred to as
"binding precedent" in that circuit, but the IRS could relitigate the
issue if it wanted to.
The problem with relitigating the issue is that it could be very
expensive, because the IRS could end up having to pay attorney's fees
for taxpayers unless it could show that there was "substantial
justification" for its position, and it can't do that if the only
precedent in the circuit is against it (unless there are conflicting
decisions in other circuits).
So the IRS *could* challenge existing precedent, but it would lose,
just like any other taxpayer, and it could be sanctioned for doing so.
>Now, I'm admittedly less knowledgable about the tax court, but I'd
>assume the general rule applies there too. I don't even know if there
>is an appeals tax court, or if appeals go to a district court, and if
>that's the case, I don't know what the rule is for when precedent is
>binding on the IRS. I assume the IRS follows the same geographic
>rule, but I'm just guessing.
Tax Court rulings are appealable to the Circuit Court in which the
taxpayer resided at the time the return was filed.
The circuit to which a case is appealable is often noted in Tax Court
opinions because the Tax Court will generally cite and rely on the
precedents from the Circuit Court to which the case is appealable.
And the IRS will sometimes lose a case in a circuit and then announce
that it will follow that precedent in that circuit but not other
circuits, so the IRS keeps track of these issues as well.
>Also note I'm not certain what tax court
>rulings are at issue here, so I'm just discussing the issue generally
>and not in reference to any particular cases.
There have been several rulings against the "section 861" issue in Tax
Court, and two or three have been affirmed by a Circuit Court of
Appeals. (There are also several decisions in District Court,
including several injunctions against promoters of the section 861
argument.)
See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section861 for details.
XCobraJock
"Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
news:0b7livoedcorm6s77...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:56:07 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If the IRS is not bound by
> >tax court decisions, why do they matter for anyone else?
>
> The IRS *is* bound by Tax Court decisions.
IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999)
Importance of Court Decisions
3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts,
or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular
taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do
not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.
> If the Tax Court rules in
> favor of a taxpayer, the IRS MUST follow that decision for that
> taxpayer (or appeal the decision).
That wasn't the issue in question. The question was based on the
IRS refusing to allow a taxpayer to audiorecord a meeting after
Tax Court had ruled in a DIFFERENT CASE that the IRS must
comply with the regulation permitting such recording of meetings
on the part of the taxpayer.
(See: From: XCobraJock Subject: Tax Court, Schmax Court . . .
Newsgroups: us.taxes, misc.taxes Date: 2003-07-31 09:22:08 PST)
> The IRS can also relitigate the same issue with other taxpayers, but
> it runs the risk of both losing (because the court is probably going
> to rule the same way again) and being sanctioned if the court decides
> that there was no "substantial justification" for its position.
Ooh, we all know what might happen to an IRS agent who ignores
the regulations, don't we . . .
> Similarly, you can (if you want) continue to claim that section 861
> exempts your income from tax,
I never claimed that.
I've refuted that red herring of yours so many times you must
be brain damaged to keep bringing it up:
> > It's not a question of whether they exempt income --
> >the regulations DETERMINE taxable income.
From: XCobraJock Subject: Re: ed, this one is a little easier to read [Re:
Convince me . . .] Newsgroups: misc.taxes Date: 2003-06-06 12:31:12 PST
>>Again, the repeated straw man, the sine qua non of the IRS
>>collaborator argument. You have been repeatedly told that
>>that argument is NOT the basis for the 861 dispute.
>>"This is your favorite red herring. It's like asking, 'Where does it say
>>you're exempt from the whisky tax? Therefore, you should be paying
>>your whisky tax'."
From: OnryAnRkst Subject: Re: Convince me, as if I was a juror, why 861 is
wrong. Newsgroups: misc.taxes Date: 2003-06-05 05:20:05 PST
"Here is another example, and this is probably the IRS lawyers' favorite
logical tap-dance: 'Section 861 does not exclude the domestic income of U.S.
citizens from taxation.' Guess what... that is TRUE, at least in one sense.
In fact, it could even be said of Section 861 AND its regulations (though
the IRS form letters just say it about the statutes). Show me where the
words of those sections say that your income is exempt. You can't, because
it's not there. Many of you can show me where it is logically IMPLIED, and
where the legal meaning shows that it is excluded, but it does NOT
specifically say that it is excluded.
"Before any status quo proponents yell 'AH HA!' let me give another analogy
to spoil your fun. Show me which words in Section 5845 EXCLUDE a .38
revolver from the definition of 'firearm.' You can't, because they aren't
there. For the most part, the section doesn't say what is NOT considered a
'firearm'; they only say what IS considered a firearm. In doing so, they
prove that a .38 is NOT a 'firearm' for purposes of that law, without
specifically SAYING that in those words.
"Likewise, by describing which domestic income IS taxable, the regulations
under 861 legally prove that most of our income is NOT taxable, but nowhere
does it come out and say 'the domestic income of most Americans is exempt
from tax.'
From: XCobraJock Subject: "Legal" definition game --Larken Rose
Newsgroups: us.taxes, misc.taxes Date: 2003-02-11 00:24:05 PST
I don't expect Dan Evans to actually REMEMBER reading this three
days from now. So, brace yourselves, folks, for him to ask over and
over, "D-uh, where does it say in 861 that your income is exempt?"
--XCobraJock
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/1/03 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <EYxWa.97$gh3...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>
Dan Evans said:
>> Similarly, you can (if you want) continue to claim that section 861
>> exempts your income from tax,>
And batty Oinky counters with:
>I never claimed that.>
>I've refuted that red herring of yours so many times you must
>be brain damaged to keep bringing it up:>
Actually, Oinky, it is you who are brain dead. Because if you never said what
Dan has accurately quoted you saying, you have just contradicted everything you
have ever said that 861 does.
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
Let's go back to 7/18/03 when Billy Roy Malloy posted these words:
Again, the issue of this thread is logical fallacies (Criswell ought
to know -- he started it), not the intricacies of the tax code.
However, as has been posted here before, the tax code as far
back as 1939 included language the clear import of which
recognized that some income that is not exempt by statute
is nevertheless exempt by the constitution itself.
That's right. 861 has nothing to do with exempted income, and 861 has everything
to do with exempted income. Your own words, Malloy, prove you to be a liar, either
with intent, or just too blind to even acknowledge your own blatent mistake.
--
"A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses;
it is an idea that possesses the mind." Robert Bolton
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
sse...@mindless.com
Toto
<gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote:
>In article <zpsWa.30$dV6...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
> "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "Geoffrey F. Green" <gfg-u...@stuebegreen.com> wrote in message
>> news:gfg-usenet-ED070...@reader1.news.rcn.net...
>>
>> > Well, no. See above. But that's not to say that can't necessarily
>> > happen. A company or individual could be held liable for fraud in
>> > jurisdiction A and not liable in jurisdiction B even though both cases
>> > involve the same basic fact pattern.
>>
>> Fraud can be wrong in one part of the country and not in another?
>
>Certain actions can be considered fraud in one part of the country and
>not elsewhere.
This is right out of the Mad Hatter Tea Party.
>Remember that for cases like fraud, you're generally
>dealing with state law, and each state has different fraud laws (both
>common law fraud, and "statutory" fraud).
A Rose by any other name ...
> So your behavior may be
>considered fraudulent in State A but not State B. And, if different
>people are bringing suit, it's certainly possible that one state court
>in State A might find liability, while another state court in State A
>wouldn't find liability, again given the same fact patterns.
>
>In addition, given the same fact patterns, it's certainly possible a
>federal court in New York could find that a company did violate law
>with respect to employee A who brought the suit, while a federal court
>in California could find that a company did not violate the same law
>with respect to employee B who also brought a suit. The potential for
>inconsistent adjudication is one of the reasons that the class action
>mechanism was developed.
The People's referendum eh?
> - geoff
Dale Eastman
>>From: "XCobraJock" X-C...@pacbell.net
>>Date: 7/31/03 8:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <HVkWa.2749$_i1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
> , you idiot.
> you morons
> tax protesor morons
> your moroninc arguments
> I know you boobs
> you are
> either morons or insane or a combinaion of the two.
>
> You, Oinky,
According to the warrant that I will get my wife to sign, I am
authorized to seize the words that I have seized from this post.
--
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back. Only one copy
of a tape may be seized as evidence. Any other seizure is a clear
violation of the First Amendment.
As of August 1, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains why Larken Rose has not filed or paid income tax
since 1996 as does this website. http://taxableincome.net
Dale Eastman
From info I've picked up elsewhere, I think Mr. Green is generally
correct about contrary lower appellate court rulings. If more of the
lower districts rule on way v. the other, it starts to set precedent
that the supreme court doesn't neccessarily counter rule.
I'm not sure you guys are arguing the same thing though, and I haven't
read the entire thread yet.
Dan Evans
wrote:
>"Likewise, by describing which domestic income IS taxable, the regulations
>under 861 legally prove that most of our income is NOT taxable, but nowhere
>does it come out and say 'the domestic income of most Americans is exempt
>from tax.'
>From: XCobraJock Subject: "Legal" definition game --Larken Rose
>Newsgroups: us.taxes, misc.taxes Date: 2003-02-11 00:24:05 PST
An admission that section 861 does not exempt any income from tax is
fatal, because section 61 states that gross income means ALL INCOME
from whatever source derived, unless specifically exempted elsewhere.
So, if section 861 doesn't exempt your income, then it is still
included in gross income and still subject to tax.
But let's ignore that for a second and focus on the accuracy of what
you said, because you said that, "by describing which domestic income
IS taxable," the regulations "prove" that your income is not taxable.
But WHERE are the regulations under section 861 "describing which
domestic income IS taxable."
The crux of your argument is that section 861 makes some other income
taxable but not yours.
Where does section 861 (or its regulations) make ANY income "taxable"?
I have asked this question many times. How about an answer?
>I don't expect Dan Evans to actually REMEMBER reading this three
>days from now. So, brace yourselves, folks, for him to ask over and
>over, "D-uh, where does it say in 861 that your income is exempt?"
I don't expect Malloy (or Larken) to actually ANSWER this question,
even though I have asked it repeatedly over the years.
So, brace yourselves, folks. Larken Rose can't find anything in
section 861 that exempts his income from tax, and he can't find
anything in section 861 that makes anyone else's income taxable
either.
Meanwhile, section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code still says that
gross income means ALL INCOME from WHATEVER source derived, and the
regulations still say, clearly and unambiguously, that Americans are
subject to tax on all income, regardless of whether the source is
inside or outside of the US.
"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
without the United States." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).
Geoffrey F. Green
Dale Eastman <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> From info I've picked up elsewhere, I think Mr. Green is generally
> correct about contrary lower appellate court rulings. If more of the
> lower districts rule on way v. the other, it starts to set precedent
> that the supreme court doesn't neccessarily counter rule.
Eh? The Supreme Court isn't bound by lower court precedent, and not
uncommonly will overrule a near-unanimous holding of the courts of
appeals.
Case in point: A friend of mine took a pro bono criminal case and got
one count thrown out in the district court on a venue issue. The
appeals court affirmed, even though the only other appeals courts to
consider the issue (about 5, I think) had held otherwise. The Supreme
Court unanimously affirmed, thereby overruling those five or so
appeals courts.
XCobraJock
and seize all the words he posted here from whatever source derived.
If Paul wants his property back he can ask you for it. You can tell
him to take a hike, and keep whatever you took from him. This is
hereby a legal search warrant. Oh, and if you want you can tax
him while you're there. He has the right to ask me to give him his
money back later. Fat chance."
--XCobraJock
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F2AEA19...@sprintmail.com...
XCobraJock
beating up Dan Evans again?
--XCobraJock
"Criswell The Psychic Weatherman" <sse...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:3F2ADDBE...@mindless.com...
XCobraJock
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:04:20 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Likewise, by describing which domestic income IS taxable, the
regulations
> >under 861 legally prove that most of our income is NOT taxable, but
nowhere
> >does it come out and say 'the domestic income of most Americans is exempt
> >from tax.'
> >From: XCobraJock Subject: "Legal" definition game --Larken Rose
> >Newsgroups: us.taxes, misc.taxes Date: 2003-02-11 00:24:05 PST
>
> An admission that section 861 does not exempt any income from tax is
> fatal, because section 61 states that gross income means ALL INCOME
> from whatever source derived, unless specifically exempted elsewhere.
> So, if section 861 doesn't exempt your income, then it is still
> included in gross income and still subject to tax.
Unless it is not taxable under the regulations that determine
taxable income from sources within the United States.
> But let's ignore that for a second and focus on the accuracy of what
> you said, because you said that, "by describing which domestic income
> IS taxable," the regulations "prove" that your income is not taxable.
>
> But WHERE are the regulations under section 861 "describing which
> domestic income IS taxable."
My domestic income is NOT taxable. There ARE NO regulations
that show my domestic income to be taxable. If you think you have taxable
domestic income under some regulation, then I suggest you pay your
"fair share."
> The crux of your argument is that section 861 makes some other income
> taxable but not yours.
For nonresident aliens with income from sources within the
United States, for example. That's true.
> Where does section 861 (or its regulations) make ANY income "taxable"?
>
> I have asked this question many times. How about an answer?
Well, the regulations SAY they determine taxable income of the
taxpayer from sources within or without the United States. It
would be in the best interest of society if they didn't actually
tax anything or anyone at all, so I leave it to YOU to prove your
own argument. I'm not going to do it for you.
> >I don't expect Dan Evans to actually REMEMBER reading this three
> >days from now. So, brace yourselves, folks, for him to ask over and
> >over, "D-uh, where does it say in 861 that your income is exempt?"
>
> I don't expect Malloy (or Larken) to actually ANSWER this question,
> even though I have asked it repeatedly over the years.
I leave it to YOU to prove your own argument. I'm not going to do it for
you.
> So, brace yourselves, folks. Larken Rose can't find anything in
> section 861 that exempts his income from tax, and he can't find
> anything in section 861 that makes anyone else's income taxable
> either.
I don't know about Larken Rose, but Dan Evans can't find anything
in Section 861 that exempts anyone from its provisions.
> Meanwhile, section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code still says that
> gross income means ALL INCOME from WHATEVER source derived, and the
> regulations still say, clearly and unambiguously,
What does "source" mean in the unambiguous way it is
used in Section 61? Which section DETERMINES THE
SOURCES of income for purposes of THE INCOME TAX?
[Hint: "861"]
that Americans are
> subject to tax on all income, regardless of whether the source is
> inside or outside of the US.
>
> "In general,
In specific:
"(ii) Relationship of sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b).
Sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b) are the four provisions
applicable in determining taxable income from specific
sources." [26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(3)(ii)]
--XCobraJock
Dale Eastman
signature on the magic piece of paper.
Paul
> ..........you didn't get the magic
> signature on the magic piece of paper.
Now, now, now.....don't break Larken's excuse as to why he failed in court.
It's the same with every tax protestor type when one of their own loses.
"He didn't dance the 'secret' dance, sit at the Defendant's table with his
legs crossed "just so", he didn't use the 'magic words', or the 'special
form', or secret wink."......."That's why he lost".
The only real question is.......who will replace Larken when he's in jail?
Roy boy isn't bright enough, Toto the pisser doesn't have any financial
ability, how about you "Dale"?
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA, PC
Athens, Georgia
tax...@negia.net
Dan Evans
wrote:
>
>"Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
>news:f9qliv0v0iu6id4nc...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:04:20 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Likewise, by describing which domestic income IS taxable, the
>regulations
>> >under 861 legally prove that most of our income is NOT taxable, but
>nowhere
>> >does it come out and say 'the domestic income of most Americans is exempt
>> >from tax.'
>> >From: XCobraJock Subject: "Legal" definition game --Larken Rose
>> >Newsgroups: us.taxes, misc.taxes Date: 2003-02-11 00:24:05 PST
>>
>> An admission that section 861 does not exempt any income from tax is
>> fatal, because section 61 states that gross income means ALL INCOME
>> from whatever source derived, unless specifically exempted elsewhere.
>> So, if section 861 doesn't exempt your income, then it is still
>> included in gross income and still subject to tax.
>
>Unless it is not taxable under the regulations that determine
>taxable income from sources within the United States.
And where do the regulations say that your income is not taxable?
Oh, that's right, the regulations don't say that your income is not
taxable. The regulations just don't say that your income *is*
taxable.
But how can what section 861 does NOT say contradict what section 61
DOES say? There are other sections of the Interal Revenue Code that
also don't say that your income is taxable. For example, section 651
(which provides a deduction to trusts that are required to distribute)
has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether or not your income is
taxable. So why don't you quote section 651 instead of section 861,
since both of them don't say anything about whether or not your income
is taxable?
Section 61 says that, "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle,
gross income means ALL INCOME from WHATEVER source derived...." Where
is the exception for your income?
>> But let's ignore that for a second and focus on the accuracy of what
>> you said, because you said that, "by describing which domestic income
>> IS taxable," the regulations "prove" that your income is not taxable.
>>
>> But WHERE are the regulations under section 861 "describing which
>> domestic income IS taxable."
>
>My domestic income is NOT taxable. There ARE NO regulations
>that show my domestic income to be taxable. If you think you have taxable
>domestic income under some regulation, then I suggest you pay your
>"fair share."
But whose income *is* taxable? Where in section 861 is ANYONE's
income 'taxable"?
Are you claiming that NO ONE is subject to income tax? If not, then
WHERE are the provisions stating what income is "taxable"?
>> The crux of your argument is that section 861 makes some other income
>> taxable but not yours.
>
>For nonresident aliens with income from sources within the
>United States, for example. That's true.
Where? You keep making an assertion (or an assumption) without any
evidence. Where does section 861 say that the domestic income of
nonresident alients is taxable?
>> Where does section 861 (or its regulations) make ANY income "taxable"?
>>
>> I have asked this question many times. How about an answer?
>
>Well, the regulations SAY they determine taxable income of the
>taxpayer from sources within or without the United States. It
>would be in the best interest of society if they didn't actually
>tax anything or anyone at all, so I leave it to YOU to prove your
>own argument. I'm not going to do it for you.
So you give up?
You claim that section 861 is the key for determining taxable income,
and yet you can't point to any provision of section 861 that actually
makes any income taxable?
If section 861 doesn't make any income taxable, how can it make any
income not taxable?
>> >I don't expect Dan Evans to actually REMEMBER reading this three
>> >days from now. So, brace yourselves, folks, for him to ask over and
>> >over, "D-uh, where does it say in 861 that your income is exempt?"
>>
>> I don't expect Malloy (or Larken) to actually ANSWER this question,
>> even though I have asked it repeatedly over the years.
>
>I leave it to YOU to prove your own argument. I'm not going to do it for
>you.
It's your argument, not mine. You're the one who believes that
section 861 determines what income is taxable, not me.
And yet you can't point to anything in section 861 that makes any
income taxable. How pathetic.
>> So, brace yourselves, folks. Larken Rose can't find anything in
>> section 861 that exempts his income from tax, and he can't find
>> anything in section 861 that makes anyone else's income taxable
>> either.
>
>I don't know about Larken Rose, but Dan Evans can't find anything
>in Section 861 that exempts anyone from its provisions.
I don't need to. For citizens and residents of the US, section 861 is
meaningless because they are subject to tax on all of their income
regardless of whether section 861 says that it is from inside the US
or outside the US.
"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
without the United States." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).
>> Meanwhile, section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code still says that
>> gross income means ALL INCOME from WHATEVER source derived, and the
>> regulations still say, clearly and unambiguously,
>
>What does "source" mean in the unambiguous way it is
>used in Section 61?
It means something irrelevant. Gross income includes ALL INCOME
regardless of what the source might be.
Historically, the phrase "from whatever source derived" was carried
over from the 16th Amendment, and it was placed in the 16th Amendment
in order to make it clear that the Pollock decision was overruled and
whether income had its source in a type of property was irrelevant to
the power of Congress to tax the income without apportionment.
"[T]he command of the [16th] Amendment that all income taxes shall not
be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the *sources* from
which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such
taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case...." Brushaber v. Union
Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
>Which section DETERMINES THE
>SOURCES of income for purposes of THE INCOME TAX?
>[Hint: "861"]
Geographical sources, yes, but geographical source is irrelevant to
citizens and residents.
Dale Eastman
> Roy boy isn't bright enough, Toto the pisser doesn't have any financial
> ability, how about you "Dale"?
>
Speaking of not too bright Mr. Thomas, You seem to be clueless about
the subtle point of my posting the quote of all your professional
comments.
<http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=181&thl=1031617057,1031615368,1031577269,1031577798,1031546190,1031544622,1031508907,1031509105,1031640451,1031637670,1031633875,1031574835&seekm=3F2850A1.7000706%40sprintmail.com#link183>
What a professional.
Dale Eastman
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote
>
>>..........you didn't get the magic
>>signature on the magic piece of paper.
> Roy boy isn't bright enough,
You also seemed to have missed which magic was being referred to.
Mr. Johnston disagreed with the characterization of the taking of the
videos as "theft," because they were mentioned on the warrant. So if a
magistrate signs a piece of paper saying that a law-enforcement officer
can take your car, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR
IT, Mr. Johnston apparently would NOT view that as theft. This is a
prime example of "state worship." They did the magic procedure, signed
the magic paper, and thereby made theft NOT theft. Never mind that both
federal statutory law (42 USC § 2000aa) AND the Supreme Court
specifically condemn efforts to use Fourth Amendment seizures to take
First Amendment materials out of circulation, as being ILLEGAL.
(exerpt from the state worshipper post)
Toto
LOL! This group could be a sitcom.
Toto
<dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>
>> Roy boy isn't bright enough, Toto the pisser doesn't have any financial
>> ability, how about you "Dale"?
>>
>
>
>Speaking of not too bright Mr. Thomas, You seem to be clueless about
>the subtle point of my posting the quote of all your professional
>comments.
><http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=181&thl=1031617057,1031615368,1031577269,1031577798,1031546190,1031544622,1031508907,1031509105,1031640451,1031637670,1031633875,1031574835&seekm=3F2850A1.7000706%40sprintmail.com#link183>
>
>What a professional.
What Mr. Rose et. al. seem JUST as unwilling to admit is that the
situation is FAR worse than you describe and has in fact, gone F A R
beyond the point where polite political discourse, petitions and court
actions can fix the problem (by about 90 years). The severity of the
problem is perfectly described in this famous quote from an all too
real fantasy novel:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris.
We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's
not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against.... We're after power
and we mean it .... There's no way to rule innocent [harmless] men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on
criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law
abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass
the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--
and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon [or
Mr. Rose], that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much
easier to deal with." --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
On the rare occasions when the law accidently interferes with
political agendas, the political class and their minions resort to
threats, harassment, demonization and whatever other form of lawless
behavior they think they can get by with -- and then deny having done
so. It's great work if you can get it. We are, after all, talking
about a government that ADMITS it cannot account for TRILLIONS of
taxpayer dollars, has STILL not fixed the problem that causes that
piece of fiduciary fraud, and shows no shame in such an admission! In
due course, this house of cards WILL collapse, but not before many
millions more harmless folks are destroyed. Some folks recommend you
turn your attention to stashing gold, guns and food.
XCobraJock
--XCobraJock
"Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
news:8camivch9fcklanp8...@4ax.com...
Right. The end.
--XCobraJock
XCobraJock
had her vote once or twice just to make sure she was doing
it right.
--XCobraJock
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F2B25B3...@sprintmail.com...
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/1/03 6:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <YiEWa.255$666...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>
>You are hereby authorized to search the home of Paul Maffia,
>and seize all the words he posted here from whatever source derived.
>If Paul wants his property back he can ask you for it. You can tell
>him to take a hike, and keep whatever you took from him. This is
>hereby a legal search warrant. Oh, and if you want you can tax
>him while you're there. He has the right to ask me to give him his
>money back later. Fat chance."
Hey Mortimer Oinky Snerd, the difference is I have not committed a crime of not
filing my taxes based on inane arguments, nor did I then write a letter to the
IRS telling them what I did and challenged them to do something about it. Nor
did I then prepare a bunch of gibberish and sell or give it away for required
donations (whatever Larken latest gambit is to try to somehow have income that
isn't taxable) perporting to show someone that no taxes are due fro a US
citizen.
The only thing I am guilty of is accurately describing the mental abilities
you, Larken, Eastmen, Toto and so amhy other boobs display here.
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/1/03 8:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <10597918...@alpha.negia.net>
>The only real question is.......who will replace Larken when he's in jail?
>
>Roy boy isn't bright enough, Toto the pisser doesn't have any financial
>ability, how about you "Dale"?>
Oh come now, Paul. Eastman is dumber that every one of the idiots you named.
Dale Eastman
<snip>
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
PaulMaf wrote:
> >From: "XCobraJock" X-C...@pacbell.net
> >Date: 8/1/03 6:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <YiEWa.255$666...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>
>
> >You are hereby authorized to search the home of Paul Maffia,
> >and seize all the words he posted here from whatever source derived.
Google already has it all, including your own self-contradictions.
> >If Paul wants his property back he can ask you for it. You can tell
> >him to take a hike, and keep whatever you took from him. This is
> >hereby a legal search warrant.
Nobody can "seize" words. Your analogies and metaphors only make sense in that
small world that exists between your ears.
> Oh, and if you want you can tax
> >him while you're there. He has the right to ask me to give him his
> >money back later. Fat chance."
You've been asked many times to give up your pension. Your refusal shows that
you're a hypocrite.
Let's remember that Billy Roy Malloy believes that survival is good and extinction
is bad. He must be very impressed with cockroaches, viruses, and parasites, since
he emulates them so well, and surrounds himself with them; living off a government
pension, while claiming to be an anarchist.
And since you also view taxes and government as parasites, I'm surprised that you
are so virulently against them. Survival is good. Extinction is bad. It's very
simple, you say. Yes, it is very simple. You want it to apply to everyone else,
but not to you. You know what word fits that defintion, Malloy.
Hey Mortimer Oinky Snerd, the difference is I have not committed a crime of not
> filing my taxes based on inane arguments, nor did I then write a letter to the
> IRS telling them what I did and challenged them to do something about it. Nor
> did I then prepare a bunch of gibberish and sell or give it away for required
> donations (whatever Larken latest gambit is to try to somehow have income that
> isn't taxable) perporting to show someone that no taxes are due fro a US
> citizen.
>
> The only thing I am guilty of is accurately describing the mental abilities
> you, Larken, Eastmen, Toto and so amhy other boobs display here.
--
Paul
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote
> The severity of the problem is perfectly described
> in this famous quote from an all too real fantasy novel:
Yes, I'd imagine that a fantasy novel is where you'd get your facts from.
Paul
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote
> Mr. Johnston disagreed with the characterization of the taking of the
> videos as "theft," because they were mentioned on the warrant. So if a
> magistrate signs a piece of paper saying that a law-enforcement officer
> can take your car, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR
> IT, Mr. Johnston apparently would NOT view that as theft.
It wouldn't be under the law. IF it was proven that there wasn't
justification for taking my car, then I get it back, and I may have a civil
action against the government, but it's not a criminal act (as theft would
be).
> They did the magic procedure, signed the magic paper, and
> thereby made theft NOT theft.
The law says it's not theft.
> Never mind that both
> federal statutory law (42 USC § 2000aa) AND the Supreme Court
> specifically condemn efforts to use Fourth Amendment seizures to take
> First Amendment materials out of circulation, as being ILLEGAL.
Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
statements on them. The tapes may already prove otherwise, and I can assure
you the government already ~had~ a copy of Larken's tape well before the
search warrant was issued.
Paul
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote
> LOL! This group could be a sitcom.
Ya think? Maybe Fox will sign us all to a $5,000,000 13 episode contract.
XCobraJock
"Paul" <tax...@negia.net> wrote in message
news:10598237...@alpha.negia.net...
> The law says it's not theft.
LOL!
> > Never mind that both
> > federal statutory law (42 USC § 2000aa) AND the Supreme Court
> > specifically condemn efforts to use Fourth Amendment seizures to take
> > First Amendment materials out of circulation, as being ILLEGAL.
>
>
> Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
> statements on them.
New principle of PaulThomas'Mericuhn justice: you now have to
prove you're innocence or you're presumed guilty, and you cannot
make Paul look at the evidence to do so.
> The tapes may already prove otherwise, and I can assure
> you the government already ~had~ a copy of Larken's tape well before the
> search warrant was issued.
Paul is a little behind in the discussion. He missed the part where Larken
sent the IRS several videos as soon as he produced them.
--XCobraJock
XCobraJock
news:3F2B8C3F...@mindless.com...
> > >You are hereby authorized to search the home of Paul Maffia,
> > >and seize all the words he posted here from whatever source derived.
>
> Google already has it all, including your own self-contradictions.
Doesn't matter, we can do just like the IRS and invade Paul's
home to search for those same words, take his computer and
all the files on it, look for evidence of other crimes, give him
back what we decide to give back, and he is guilty unless he
can prove his words were innocent according to the IRS
collaborators around here.
> > >If Paul wants his property back he can ask you for it. You can tell
> > >him to take a hike, and keep whatever you took from him. This is
> > >hereby a legal search warrant.
>
> Nobody can "seize" words. Your analogies and metaphors only make sense in
that
> small world that exists between your ears.
Eastman can. If you can't seize words, how can you twist them?
> > Oh, and if you want you can tax
> > >him while you're there. He has the right to ask me to give him his
> > >money back later. Fat chance."
>
> You've been asked many times to give up your pension. Your refusal shows
that
> you're a hypocrite.
So? It's partly your money. If you want it back, ask me.
> Let's remember that Billy Roy Malloy believes that survival is good and
extinction
> is bad.
And Scott Senate thinks the opposite? Yet he doesn't kill himself?
Sounds like a hypocrite to me!
--XCobraJock
Dan Evans
wrote:
>The regulations don't say my income is taxable.
Actually, they do:
Toto
wrote:
>
>"Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
>news:0b7livoedcorm6s77...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:56:07 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If the IRS is not bound by
>> >tax court decisions, why do they matter for anyone else?
>>
>> The IRS *is* bound by Tax Court decisions.
>
>IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999)
>Importance of Court Decisions
>
>3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts,
>or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular
>taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do
>not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.
If this is not an appalling example of shameless arrogance and
corruption in our legal system, then there is no such thing as
arrogance or corruption.
>> If the Tax Court rules in
>> favor of a taxpayer, the IRS MUST follow that decision for that
>> taxpayer (or appeal the decision).
Why not for ALL taxpayers? If the IRS does not like the decision, why
is it not perfectly just for them to follow that order NATIONWIDE,
until they can get a reversal on appeal to district court?
>
>That wasn't the issue in question. The question was based on the
>IRS refusing to allow a taxpayer to audiorecord a meeting after
>Tax Court had ruled in a DIFFERENT CASE that the IRS must
>comply with the regulation permitting such recording of meetings
>on the part of the taxpayer.
>
>(See: From: XCobraJock Subject: Tax Court, Schmax Court . . .
>Newsgroups: us.taxes, misc.taxes Date: 2003-07-31 09:22:08 PST)
>
>> The IRS can also relitigate the same issue with other taxpayers, but
>> it runs the risk of both losing (because the court is probably going
>> to rule the same way again) and being sanctioned if the court decides
>> that there was no "substantial justification" for its position.
>
>Ooh, we all know what might happen to an IRS agent who ignores
>the regulations, don't we . . .
>
>> Similarly, you can (if you want) continue to claim that section 861
>> exempts your income from tax,
>
>I never claimed that.
>
>I've refuted that red herring of yours so many times you must
>be brain damaged to keep bringing it up:
>
>> > It's not a question of whether they exempt income --
>> >the regulations DETERMINE taxable income.
>From: XCobraJock Subject: Re: ed, this one is a little easier to read [Re:
>Convince me . . .] Newsgroups: misc.taxes Date: 2003-06-06 12:31:12 PST
>
>
>>>Again, the repeated straw man, the sine qua non of the IRS
>>>collaborator argument. You have been repeatedly told that
>>>that argument is NOT the basis for the 861 dispute.
>>>"This is your favorite red herring. It's like asking, 'Where does it say
>>>you're exempt from the whisky tax? Therefore, you should be paying
>>>your whisky tax'."
>From: OnryAnRkst Subject: Re: Convince me, as if I was a juror, why 861 is
>wrong. Newsgroups: misc.taxes Date: 2003-06-05 05:20:05 PST
>
>
>"Here is another example, and this is probably the IRS lawyers' favorite
>logical tap-dance: 'Section 861 does not exclude the domestic income of U.S.
>citizens from taxation.' Guess what... that is TRUE, at least in one sense.
>In fact, it could even be said of Section 861 AND its regulations (though
>the IRS form letters just say it about the statutes). Show me where the
>words of those sections say that your income is exempt. You can't, because
>it's not there. Many of you can show me where it is logically IMPLIED, and
>where the legal meaning shows that it is excluded, but it does NOT
>specifically say that it is excluded.
This kind of vagueness is by design. It's called protecting the turf
of the lawgivers and interpreters.
Toto
>
>"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote
>> The severity of the problem is perfectly described
>> in this famous quote from an all too real fantasy novel:
>
>
>
>Yes, I'd imagine that a fantasy novel is where you'd get your facts from.
I would give ANYTHING to make this true.
Dave Woods, EA
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
>> 3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts,
>> or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular
>> taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do
>> not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.
>
> If this is not an appalling example of shameless arrogance and
> corruption in our legal system, then there is no such thing as
> arrogance or corruption.
"I did not engage in sexual relations with that heffer, Ms. Lewinsky". It
wasn't perjury or obstruction; just ask any Democrat.
>>> If the Tax Court rules in
>>> favor of a taxpayer, the IRS MUST follow that decision for that
>>> taxpayer (or appeal the decision).
>
> Why not for ALL taxpayers? If the IRS does not like the decision, why
> is it not perfectly just for them to follow that order NATIONWIDE,
> until they can get a reversal on appeal to district court?
Because the issue is only binding on those party to it on the specific issue
being litigated. Unless the issue is decided by the Supreme Court of the
US, another court can always issue its own opinion.
--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109
Postings here are general information only and not to be relied upon as
advice.
XCobraJock
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:49:48 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The regulations don't say my income is taxable.
>
> Actually, they do:
>
> "In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
> all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
The tax is imposed on TAXABLE income Dan . . .
Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to
determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within
the United States.
> by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
> without the United States." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).
--XCobraJock
XCobraJock
"Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BB519383.954E%d.w...@verizon.net...
> > Why not for ALL taxpayers? If the IRS does not like the decision, why
> > is it not perfectly just for them to follow that order NATIONWIDE,
> > until they can get a reversal on appeal to district court?
>
> Because the issue is only binding on those party to it on the specific
issue
> being litigated. Unless the issue is decided by the Supreme Court of the
> US, another court can always issue its own opinion.
. . .which is anarchy.
--XCobraJock
Dave Woods, EA
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Only in the Andromeda galaxy. If the Tax Court hears a case in Arizona (a
state and federal circuit which has no jurisdiction or standing over me),
what pray tell does any decision there have relevant to me? That's twice
now I've asked you, and twice you're going to evade the question like a
Kennedy ducking an AA meeting.
Gray Shockley
>> 3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts,
>> or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular
>> taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do
>> not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.
>
> If this is not an appalling example of shameless arrogance and
> corruption in our legal system, then there is no such thing as
> arrogance or corruption.
Sorry, strange pooch, but that's the way the United States court systemworks
(even if Toto the Pooch likes other countries' system better).
To use a (always slippery) analogy:
Recently a high-level court (Court of Appeals) held that the phrase "under
God" was illegal in the Pledge on Allegiance. Now if they had made an
immediate ruling that the Pledge on Allegiance be stoipped in all states
under that court's jurisdiction, you would argue that that decisaion be
immediately implemented in all of the United States?
(If I remember correctly, you'er an atheist (Mandatory if one is an "Ayn
Randist), but my analogy should still be valid.)
I can come up with something "properly" atheistic if that please your doggie
taste.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
XCobraJock
> On 8/2/03 4:37 PM, in article QhVWa.103$O%2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com,
> "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > . . .which is anarchy.
>
> Only in the Andromeda galaxy. If the Tax Court hears a case in Arizona (a
> state and federal circuit which has no jurisdiction or standing over me),
> what pray tell does any decision there have relevant to me?
Nothing. It's also consistent with anarchy that a tax court can
rule one way in one case and the IRS can ignore it in every
other case. It's consistent with anarchy that you can be guilty
in one state and innocent in another, all other circumstances
being equal. It's also consistent with anarchy that tax court
has no bearing on anything in your life unless you are the
petitioner. The tax code is supposed to be uniform across
the states. A ruling on a taxpayer in AZ would apply the
same way to a taxpayer in any other state, under the same
circumstances -- if it were not for anarchy.
It is inconsistent with the belief in "government" to say courts
should treat right and wrong differently based on location.
> That's twice
> now I've asked you, and twice you're going to evade the question like a
> Kennedy ducking an AA meeting.
If right and wrong don't change with georgaphic location,
it's loony to believe in different outcomes with a change in
location, all other things being equal.
If right and wrong change because of geographic location,
then it's absurd to have a central "authority" making laws.
So, unless you advocate we all conform to one set of laws for
everyone, the alternative is anarchy. By the way, geographic
location is but one of many variables state-worshippers rely
on in their defense of an inconsistent application of the law.
--XCobraJock
esenter
XCobraJock wrote:
> "Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
> news:972oiv46mtu0dgnkq...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:49:48 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The regulations don't say my income is taxable.
>>
>>Actually, they do:
>>
>>"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
>>all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
>
>
> The tax is imposed on TAXABLE income Dan . . .
> Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to
> determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within
> the United States.
Taxable income is defined as gross income minus deductions.
We can turn this into a math problem.
Familiar with (A-B)C=AC-BC ?
Then, (Gross Income - Deductions)from within the U.S. = (Gross
Income)from within the U.S. minus (Deductions)from within the U.S.
That is why when you go to the regulations at 861 et.seq., all you will
find is how to allocate and apportion deductions to the three categories
of sources.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS "DETERMINED" TO BE TAXABLE IN THOSE SECTIONS, in
spite of the fantasies of L. Rose and malloy.
esenter
This coming from someone who believes men can get along left to their
own individual devices (no government), therefore, he has no concept of
the principles of APPEAL RIGHTS and JURISDICTION.
>
> --XCobraJock
>
>
esenter
XCobraJock wrote:
> "Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:BB519EB4.955E%d.w...@verizon.net...
>
>>On 8/2/03 4:37 PM, in article QhVWa.103$O%2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com,
>>"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>. . .which is anarchy.
>>
>>Only in the Andromeda galaxy. If the Tax Court hears a case in Arizona (a
>>state and federal circuit which has no jurisdiction or standing over me),
>>what pray tell does any decision there have relevant to me?
>
>
> Nothing. It's also consistent with anarchy that a tax court can
> rule one way in one case and the IRS can ignore it in every
> other case. It's consistent with anarchy that you can be guilty
> in one state and innocent in another, all other circumstances
> being equal. It's also consistent with anarchy that tax court
> has no bearing on anything in your life unless you are the
> petitioner. The tax code is supposed to be uniform across
> the states. A ruling on a taxpayer in AZ would apply the
> same way to a taxpayer in any other state, under the same
> circumstances -- if it were not for anarchy.
>
> It is inconsistent with the belief in "government" to say courts
> should treat right and wrong differently based on location.
No, it is consistent with the principles of republicanism, a type of
government. The goal is a consensus, not an absolute determination of
"right and wrong". Man is fallible, therefore the law is not absolute
but is the result of experimentation based on a consensus of differing
opinions.
Dan Evans
Then we have been in anarchy since 1776, because that is ALWAYS the
way it has worked in this country.
Court opinions from New York are not binding in New Jersey, and court
opinions from Sussex County, New Jersey, are not binding in Monmouth
County, New Jersey.
The only time a court precedent is "binding" is when it is from an
APPEALS court, which means a Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the
federal system, and not a Tax Court opinion or a District Court
opinion.
So the IRS follows Supreme Court opinions throughout the United
States, Circuit Court opinions in that circuit (but not other
circuits), and follows District Court and Tax Court opinions only when
it agrees with them.
By doing this, the IRS is behaving EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT THE
COURTS THEMSELVES WORK. All federal courts follow Supreme Court
opinions, the federal courts within a circuit follow the decisions
within that circuit but not other circuits (unless they agree with
them), and federal district courts follow the decisions within that
district but not decisions from other districts (unless they agree
with them).
This is something of an over-simplification, but over-simplification
is needed to have any chance of penetrating your simple mind.
Dave Woods, EA
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I have suggestions for you:
1) Prozac
2) Lobotomy
3) Since you obviously don't believe that people in different locations
should be allowed to have different values: move.
4) There is a reason communism has always failed. People believe in choice.
5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred years
or so.
6) Not everything is black and white, despite what the Democratic National
Committee might tell you.
Toto
Good idea. While you're at it, tell us what the value and purpose of
the 14th Amendment was.
>4) There is a reason communism has always failed. People believe in choice.
Correct. Including the choice to ignore the IRS. What if a
particular state simply OUTLAWED the IRS and kicked them out of their
territory? I believe in choice also. Since you want to have your
cake and eat it too with regard to the IRS, you reveal the rampaging
illogic in your defense of unequal enforcement tax laws nationwide.
>5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred years
>or so.
Then why not let the IRS collect taxes ONLY from state governments and
allow each state to enforce the collection from individuals any way
they want? What's the purpose of the IRS have multiple offices in
EVERY state if each state can do whatever they want?
XCobraJock
> I have suggestions for you:
>
> 1) Prozac
> 2) Lobotomy
I see, you're a member of the PaulMaf/DanEvans/PaulThomas
When-You-Don't-Have-a-Valid-Point-Resort-to-Insults
Debating Society.
> 3) Since you obviously don't believe that people in different locations
> should be allowed to have different values: move.
What does that have to do with anything?
> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed.
Communism fails because people don't like being ordered around
by other goofs no more intelligent than they are.
>People believe in choice.
And that's anarchy -- freedom of choice is the opposite of "government."
> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred
years
> or so.
States have opposing laws for lots of reasons. That's the result of
anarchy, by the way. If "government" existed, it would enforce the
same justice uniformly.
> 6) Not everything is black and white, despite what the Democratic National
> Committee might tell you.
Being uncommitted to any political party, I make it a habit of believing
everything DemocRATs and Repooplicans say about each other.
--XCobraJock
XCobraJock
> > > Because the issue is only binding on those party to it on the specific
> > issue
> > > being litigated. Unless the issue is decided by the Supreme Court of
the
> > > US, another court can always issue its own opinion.
> >
> > . . .which is anarchy.
>
> Then we have been in anarchy since 1776, because that is ALWAYS the
> way it has worked in this country.
That's true. In fact, anarchy has been around a lot longer than
that. Without it evolution could never have happened. Without
it, the people who started the United States could never have killed
the king's police and soldiers, and kicked them out of America.
If "government" existed, it would never have allowed Lyndon Johnson
and a DemocRAT congress to invade Vietnam with no expectation
of victory. If "Government" would never have incinerated the Branch
Davidians, imposed prohibition, enslaved Africans, or slaughtered
the Indians. And of course, "government" would have prevented
Hitler from being named chancellor of Germany, and Bill Clinton
from becoming president of the United States.
I can't count the number of times authoritarians say to me, "Without
government, we would be FREE to roam the world killing each other,
there'd be massive robbery, people would grab all the money they
could get their hands on, and screw the poor people!" They don't
get it that they just described the way it is NOW, even when I point
it out to them. The conditions they insist "would happen" without
"government" ALREADY EXIST. So, if it WOULD HAPPEN
that without "government" we would be FREE to roam the world
killing each other, there'd be massive robbery, people would grab
all the money they could get their hands on, and all the other crap
they're afraid of, then it is pretty obvious with respect to "government"
that
THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING.
> Court opinions from New York are not binding in New Jersey, and court
> opinions from Sussex County, New Jersey, are not binding in Monmouth
> County, New Jersey.
>
> The only time a court precedent is "binding" is when it is from an
> APPEALS court, which means a Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the
> federal system, and not a Tax Court opinion or a District Court
> opinion.
>
> So the IRS follows Supreme Court opinions throughout the United
> States, Circuit Court opinions in that circuit (but not other
> circuits), and follows District Court and Tax Court opinions only when
> it agrees with them.
LOL. The IRS obeys its own regulations when directed to do so
by a tax court opinion only when it agrees with it . . . That's not
anarchy?
> By doing this, the IRS is behaving EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT THE
> COURTS THEMSELVES WORK.
Yeah, which is indistinguishable from anarchy.
--XCobraJock
Gray Shockley
(in message <QhVWa.103$O%2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>):
You might be interested in talking this over with one of the other people who
live in the same skull as you do.
His/her/its name is onryanarksdt (I probably misspelled his/her/their
"cutesy" misspelling) and s/he/it is one of the "people" who reside in the
legal entity known as William R. Malloy and by several other names depending
on which "person" is dominant and in control of his/her/its/their body at any
given time.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
Gray Shockley
(in message <jv_Wa.433$3Q7.29...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>> By doing this, the IRS is behaving EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT THE
>> COURTS THEMSELVES WORK.
>
> Yeah, which is indistinguishable from anarchy.
So doesn't one of the other people who lives in your skull happy with this?
Ole OnryAnRcie (or however the inhabitants of your skull "cutesy" spell it)
claims to be an anarchist so he should love this.
[S/he/it/they also claim to be "onry" but that's - in all liklihood - just
male menopause.]
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
Dan Evans
wrote:
>
>"Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
>news:972oiv46mtu0dgnkq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:49:48 GMT, "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The regulations don't say my income is taxable.
>>
>> Actually, they do:
>>
>> "In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
>> all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
>
>The tax is imposed on TAXABLE income Dan . . .
And taxable income is nothing but gross income less deductions. See
IRC section 63.
So, if ALL INCOME (both foreign and domestic) is included in gross
income, then ALL INCOME (both foreign and domestic) is going to be
included in taxable income, less the deductions allowable.
You have previously admitted that nothing in section 861 excludes your
income from gross income. That means your taxable income is ALL of
your income, less the deductions allowable.
>Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to
>determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within
>the United States.
Right. Gross income less deductions.
All of your gross income is from within the United States according to
section 861(a). I'm willing to assume that all of your deductions are
also from within the US. (Or do you want to claim that you have
foreign income or foreign deductions? No? I thought not.)
That means that your TAXABLE INCOME form sources within the United
States is your GROSS INCOME less your deductions.
And your gross income is still ALL INCOME, because you still haven't
pointed to anything that excludes any part of your income from gross
income.
How many times are we going to have to belabor the obvious?
XCobraJock
--XCobraJock
"Dan Evans" <d...@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
news:g8roiv4fihb3hiij5...@4ax.com...
Dale Eastman
>>Never mind that both
>>federal statutory law (42 USC § 2000aa) AND the Supreme Court
>>specifically condemn efforts to use Fourth Amendment seizures to take
>>First Amendment materials out of circulation, as being ILLEGAL.
>
> Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
> statements on them.
Since this stuff was posted, I have received my copy of
Theft-By-Deception and viewed it.
He tells no one to do anything, illegal or otherwise... Not even to
rewind the tape.
> The tapes may already prove otherwise,
Correctly stated assumptive statement. Key word being MAY.
This is MY first person testimony of what I have personally viewed.
My assertion is grounded in the reality of what is on the tape and is
provable.
I hereby counter, these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever.
Re-addressing your prior comment:
> Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
> statements on them.
That will be very easy. All that has to be done is play the video for
the jury.
> and I can assure you the government already ~had~ a copy of Larken's
> tape well before the search warrant was issued.
And having finally viewed the tape that this big feud is all about,
I can assure you that the government had no cause to confiscate the
tapes they did. They had the same information available to them that I
did when I viewed the video.
Folks, there's definitely something wrong here.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
Quote from the late Robert A. Heinlein:
From the story: If This Goes On
...secrecy is the keystone of tyranny. Not force, but secrecy...
censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter,
undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must
not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and
oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is
needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no
amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No,
not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't conquer a free
man; the most you can do is kill him.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
As of August 2, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
paid income tax since 1996
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
Gray Shockley
(in message <C%_Wa.37$Ny5.3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>):
> I disagree with your assessment.
>
> --XCobraJock
Of course, you do - all of you who live in that skull. That's why you get
letters such as the one you quote at:
<http://members.aol.com/onryanrkst/threat2.htm>
--------------------------------------------------------
We have determined that the information you sent in is frivolous and your
position has no basis in law. Claims, such as yours, have been considered and
rejected repeatedly as without merit by the federal courts -including the
Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, we will not respond to future
correspondence concerning these issues.
In answering your tax questions, we encourage you to seek advice
from competent tax counsel or an attorney qualified to practice in your
state.
This is to inform you of the potential consequence of the
position you have taken and to offer you an opportunity to correct your
position within 30 days from the date of this letter.
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 6702 (FRIVOLOUS INCOME TAX RETURN) PROVIDES:
(a) CIVIL PENALTY - if -
(1) any individual files what purports to be a return of tax
imposed by subtitle A but which -
(A) does not contain information on which the substantial
correctness of
the self-assessment may be judge, or
(B) contains information that on its face indicates that the
self-assessment
is substantially incorrect; and
(2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (I) is due to -
(A) a position which is frivolous, or
(B) a desire (which appears on the purported return) to delay
or impede the
administration of Federal Income Tax Laws, then such
individuals shall
pay a penalty of $500.
(b) PENALTY IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES- The penalty imposed by
subsection (a) shall be in addition to any other penalty provided by
law.
--------------------------------------------------------
You may disagree all you like but let's be clear that your "disagreement" is,
legally, frivolous, and shows an inability to absorb matter and relate it in
a consistent, rational manner.
During your twenty years on Active Duty in the United States Army, did you
have at least one severe (although it might not have seemed so at the time)
injury to your head? Did you often fly without your helmet?
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton,
they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/2/03 8:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F2C7D47...@sprintmail.com>
>Since this stuff was posted, I have received my copy of
>Theft-By-Deception and viewed it.
>
>He tells no one to do anything, illegal or otherwise... Not even to
>rewind the tape.>
Let's see? the tape is entitled, "Theft-By-Deception." Yet you maintain he is
not telling anyone to do anything.
Simple question for a Simpleton Eastman:
What does the title mean?
> > The tapes may already prove otherwise,
>Correctly stated assumptive statement. Key word being MAY.>
>This is MY first person testimony of what I have personally viewed.
>My assertion is grounded in the reality of what is on the tape and is
>provable.>
And we are to accept the testimony of someone who reads the 861 argument and
concludes that he is not sure; when any one with a smidgen of intelligence and
common sense would read the regulation and the argument and conclude that the
argument is moronic gibberish?
>I hereby counter, these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
>could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
>law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever.>
And what does the tile of the tape mean?
>Re-addressing your prior comment:
> > Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
> > statements on them.>
>That will be very easy. All that has to be done is play the video for
>the jury.>
And he will be convicted or at best found not guilty because of being either
terminally insane or stupid.
> > and I can assure you the government already ~had~ a copy of Larken's
> > tape well before the search warrant was issued.>
>And having finally viewed the tape that this big feud is all about,
>I can assure you that the government had no cause to confiscate the
>tapes they did. They had the same information available to them that I
>did when I viewed the video.>
And we are to accept the opinion of someone who has no understanding of the law
("I am not sure," is your position) and how it operates, why?
>Folks, there's definitely something wrong here.>
Yes, your IQ!
>If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
>interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
Why? They can send for their own. Just remember Mortimer Oinky Snerd and you
have said Larken will send it free. that means they can save themselves the
expense of driving to yoiur place to view this precious tape.
>On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
Lie #1 on your part:
They did not push, they rang the doorbell or knocked. Mr. Rose opened the door,
he was shown the warrwent and he let them in.
>and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
>Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.>
A statement based solely on Barken Larken's say so. Let's see, does Barken have
a personal interest in getting you to beleive this?
>As of August 2, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
>Rose for the commission of any crime.
So you believe that three months is long enough for a proper investigation. On
what do you base this? Have you ever conducted an investigation of any kind
whose ultimate purpose might be to charge someone with a crime, bring them to
trial.
If not, your opinion on how long the IRS should have to reach a decision is
worthless.
>This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
>paid income tax since 1996>
In other words, he admits to having committed a crime. A wants the world to
inow about it, why? He has a martyr complex maybe? He thinks he can sway public
opinion in such a manner that he is somehow going to be spared having to pay
the taxes he owes plus penalties and interest andf possibly jail time?
Get real!!
Dave Woods, EA
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
When I want to hear from an asshole I will fart.
>> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed. People believe in choice.
>
> Correct. Including the choice to ignore the IRS. What if a
> particular state simply OUTLAWED the IRS and kicked them out of their
> territory?
I believe we established the Supremacy Clause over states rights sometime
around 1865.
> I believe in choice also. Since you want to have your
> cake and eat it too with regard to the IRS, you reveal the rampaging
> illogic in your defense of unequal enforcement tax laws nationwide.
Of course you wouldn't know logic if it whacked you upside the head..
>
>> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred years
>> or so.
>
> Then why not let the IRS collect taxes ONLY from state governments and
> allow each state to enforce the collection from individuals any way
> they want? What's the purpose of the IRS have multiple offices in
> EVERY state if each state can do whatever they want?
You dare mention the 14th amendment and then conveniently ignore the 10th?
>> 6) Not everything is black and white, despite what the Democratic National
>> Committee might tell you.
>
--
Dave Woods, EA
cd_Wa.431$uL7.28...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "XCobraJock"
<X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:BB51D610.957B%d.w...@verizon.net...
>> I have suggestions for you:
>>
>> 1) Prozac
>> 2) Lobotomy
>
> I see, you're a member of the PaulMaf/DanEvans/PaulThomas
> When-You-Don't-Have-a-Valid-Point-Resort-to-Insults
> Debating Society.
Well when logic is ignored by the recipient of the insult....
>
>> 3) Since you obviously don't believe that people in different locations
>> should be allowed to have different values: move.
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
Right over your head....
>
>> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed.
>
> Communism fails because people don't like being ordered around
> by other goofs no more intelligent than they are.
>
>> People believe in choice.
>
> And that's anarchy -- freedom of choice is the opposite of "government."
Refer back to #3. Communism eliminates choice. Since you despise choice,
you must be a fan of communism. Hey how's that working out for you?
>
>> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred
> years
>> or so.
>
> States have opposing laws for lots of reasons. That's the result of
> anarchy, by the way. If "government" existed, it would enforce the
> same justice uniformly.
Ultimately, the reason states have opposing laws has to do with history.
Again, read it.
Dale Eastman
>>From: Dale Eastman dalere...@sprintmail.com
>>Date: 8/2/03 8:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3F2C7D47...@sprintmail.com>
>
>
>>Since this stuff was posted, I have received my copy of
>>Theft-By-Deception and viewed it.
>>
>>He tells no one to do anything, illegal or otherwise... Not even to
>>rewind the tape.>
>
>
> Let's see? the tape is entitled, "Theft-By-Deception." Yet you maintain he is
> not telling anyone to do anything.
On the Witness Stand:
Prosecuting Lawyer:
"Mr. Eastman you have asserted 'these tapes DO NOT contain anything that
even remotely could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any
person to break any law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take
any action what so ever.'"
"How can you assert such a frivilous position?"
Mr. E:
"Duh, because I actually took the time to view the video."
---------
Defense Lawyer:
"Mr. Maf, you have asserted that if the video is played for a jury to
determine if the material contained within the tape is due First
Amendment protections, Mr. Rose 'will be convicted or at best found not
guilty because of being either terminally insane or stupid'."
"Did you view the video, Mr. Maf, yes or no?"
Mr. M:
"No."
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
As of August 2, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
paid income tax since 1996
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
Dale Eastman
> When I want to hear from an asshole I will fart.
> Of course you wouldn't know logic if it whacked you upside the head..
Score +2
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
Which demostrates another subject you have zero knowledge about, anarchy. That's
right, Billy Roy Malloy equates state legislators, elected by the people of that
state, to anarchy. Another reason your book was probably rejected, and could
only be published by a Vanity Publisher. With every post, you prove to the world
that you haven't a clue, and seem very happy to live in that world that exists
solely between your ears. I'd ask you to open your eyes, and look at the real
world, but I already know from experience that you can't handle the real world,
and that your made-up world is so much better.
So, Billy, why are you still paying taxes? Why are you still accepting money
from the government you claim you despise so much? Can't back up your big talk
with any action that shows there's anything behind it? I'm not surprised.
> Ultimately, the reason states have opposing laws has to do with history.
> Again, read it.
History means nothing to the world between Billy Roy Malloy's ears, unless it's
the convoluted history of his puppet master, Larken Rose. Even if he read it, he
has shown that he is incapable of understanding it. Why has Malloy aligned
himself with Rose? Because they're on the same mental level. Rose feels he must
say the same thing several times on the same web page, because everyone reading
it is too stupid to get it the first time, so Malloy mistakes Rose's arrogance
for intelligence, and makes the same mistake with his own.. Both Rose and
Malloy show their arrogance and stupidity by assuming they're superior
intellects. That's something they can never achieve, although, they're probably
going to have access to a very extensive prison library, and will probably have a
lot of time to go through it.
Enjoy your freedoms while you have them, children.
> --
> David M. Woods, EA
> Boston, MA 02109
>
> Postings here are general information only and not to be relied upon as
> advice.
--
"A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses;
it is an idea that possesses the mind." Robert Bolton
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
sse...@mindless.com
XCobraJock
--XCobraJock
"Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BB528422.95AB%d.w...@verizon.net...
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/3/03 7:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ca9Xa.303$z5...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>
>Nothing you wrote below refutes the existence of anarchy.>
For once you are right. anarchy does exist.
But one thing I can guarnatee you, Mortimer Oinky Snerd, where it exits, you
don't want to live. Just to name one: try Liberia. Wonderful place to live,
right?
What an idiot!!
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/3/03 6:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F2D1548...@sprintmail.com>
>Defense Lawyer:
>"Mr. Maf, you have asserted that if the video is played for a jury to
>determine if the material contained within the tape is due First
>Amendment protections, Mr. Rose 'will be convicted or at best found not
>guilty because of being either terminally insane or stupid'."
>
>"Did you view the video, Mr. Maf, yes or no?"
>
>Mr. M:
>"No.">
How do you know, Simpy Eastman? His tape has been available for quite a while.
How do you know I have not seen it? You have a crystal ball? John Edwards told
you?
He used to argue his position here a few years back and had his head handed to
him. Mortimer Oinky Snerd and you have presented his argument over and over
again here. Its gibberish!
>On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
>and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
>Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.>
And why is Mr. Larken's statement that they vowed to never return them to be
believed? Because he has told the truth so often before? Or maybe it is because
you believe him, therefore, we should too?
>As of August 2, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
>Rose for the commission of any crime.>
How often have you conducted and investigation into possible wrong doing?
>This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
>paid income tax since 1996>
In other words, he admits he committed a crime for bogus reasons!
>If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
>interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
And why should they spend money to view it when according to you and Mortimer
Oinky Snerd, he will send it to them for nothing?
Toto
<d.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
Clever answer dude. It's such a pleasure to converse with adults.
>>> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed. People believe in choice.
>>
>> Correct. Including the choice to ignore the IRS. What if a
>> particular state simply OUTLAWED the IRS and kicked them out of their
>> territory?
>
>I believe we established the Supremacy Clause over states rights sometime
>around 1865.
That was the day the States became chattel.
>> I believe in choice also. Since you want to have your
>> cake and eat it too with regard to the IRS, you reveal the rampaging
>> illogic in your defense of unequal enforcement tax laws nationwide.
>
>Of course you wouldn't know logic if it whacked you upside the head..
I'm waiting for enlightenment on this issue. Do you have any?
Apparently not.
>>
>>> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>>> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>>> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred years
>>> or so.
>>
>> Then why not let the IRS collect taxes ONLY from state governments and
>> allow each state to enforce the collection from individuals any way
>> they want? What's the purpose of the IRS have multiple offices in
>> EVERY state if each state can do whatever they want?
>
>You dare mention the 14th amendment and then conveniently ignore the 10th?
Nope. The tenth trumps the fourteenth -- or WOULD if we had a
legitimate federal government. I was just wondering what YOU think is
the meaning of one or most precious and important founding axioms:
"All Men are equal under the law".
Toto
<d.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 8/2/03 10:13 PM, in article
>cd_Wa.431$uL7.28...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "XCobraJock"
><X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:BB51D610.957B%d.w...@verizon.net...
>>> I have suggestions for you:
>>>
>>> 1) Prozac
>>> 2) Lobotomy
>>
>> I see, you're a member of the PaulMaf/DanEvans/PaulThomas
>> When-You-Don't-Have-a-Valid-Point-Resort-to-Insults
>> Debating Society.
>
>Well when logic is ignored by the recipient of the insult....
WHAT logic?
>>> 3) Since you obviously don't believe that people in different locations
>>> should be allowed to have different values: move.
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything?
>
>Right over your head....
What do you say when one of your valued clients asks you the same
thing?
>>> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed.
>>
>> Communism fails because people don't like being ordered around
>> by other goofs no more intelligent than they are.
>>
>>> People believe in choice.
>>
>> And that's anarchy -- freedom of choice is the opposite of "government."
>
>Refer back to #3. Communism eliminates choice. Since you despise choice,
>you must be a fan of communism. Hey how's that working out for you?
Whizzzzz! Right over your head.
>>
>>> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>>> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>>> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred
>> years
>>> or so.
>>
>> States have opposing laws for lots of reasons. That's the result of
>> anarchy, by the way. If "government" existed, it would enforce the
>> same justice uniformly.
>
>Ultimately, the reason states have opposing laws has to do with history.
And that history is?
Dale Eastman
>>From: Dale Eastman dalere...@sprintmail.com
>>Date: 8/3/03 6:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3F2D1548...@sprintmail.com>
>
>
>>Defense Lawyer:
>>"Mr. Maf, you have asserted that if the video is played for a jury to
>>determine if the material contained within the tape is due First
>>Amendment protections, Mr. Rose 'will be convicted or at best found not
>>guilty because of being either terminally insane or stupid'."
>>
>>"Did you view the video, Mr. Maf, yes or no?"
>>
>>Mr. M:
>>"No.">
>
"Did you view the video, Mr. Maf, yes or no?"
<snip tirade>
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
As of August 3, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
paid income tax since 1996
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
Dave Woods, EA
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:19:30 GMT, "Dave Woods, EA"
> <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/03 10:13 PM, in article
>> cd_Wa.431$uL7.28...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "XCobraJock"
>> <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:BB51D610.957B%d.w...@verizon.net...
>>>> I have suggestions for you:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Prozac
>>>> 2) Lobotomy
>>>
>>> I see, you're a member of the PaulMaf/DanEvans/PaulThomas
>>> When-You-Don't-Have-a-Valid-Point-Resort-to-Insults
>>> Debating Society.
>>
>> Well when logic is ignored by the recipient of the insult....
>
> WHAT logic?
Right over your head again.
>>>> 3) Since you obviously don't believe that people in different locations
>>>> should be allowed to have different values: move.
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with anything?
>>
>> Right over your head....
>
> What do you say when one of your valued clients asks you the same
> thing?
Client's don't come in to discuss politics. They come in to discuss
minimizing their tax liability.
>>>> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed.
>>>
>>> Communism fails because people don't like being ordered around
>>> by other goofs no more intelligent than they are.
>>>
>>>> People believe in choice.
>>>
>>> And that's anarchy -- freedom of choice is the opposite of "government."
>>
>> Refer back to #3. Communism eliminates choice. Since you despise choice,
>> you must be a fan of communism. Hey how's that working out for you?
>
> Whizzzzz! Right over your head.
Yes right over your head
>>>
>>>> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>>>> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>>>> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred
>>> years
>>>> or so.
>>>
>>> States have opposing laws for lots of reasons. That's the result of
>>> anarchy, by the way. If "government" existed, it would enforce the
>>> same justice uniformly.
>>
>> Ultimately, the reason states have opposing laws has to do with history.
>
> And that history is?
You have internet access, look it up Sherlock.
Dave Woods, EA
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Nothing you wrote below refutes the existence of anarchy.
And you provide no evidence to support it either. Of course the fact that
governments exist at all sort of defies the very definition of anarchy.....
Dave Woods, EA
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
Much better than the 13 year old girls you usually chase after.
>>>> 4) There is a reason communism has always failed. People believe in
>>>> choice.
>>>
>>> Correct. Including the choice to ignore the IRS. What if a
>>> particular state simply OUTLAWED the IRS and kicked them out of their
>>> territory?
>>
>> I believe we established the Supremacy Clause over states rights sometime
>> around 1865.
>
> That was the day the States became chattel.
Obviously you never actually READ the Constitution.
>>> I believe in choice also. Since you want to have your
>>> cake and eat it too with regard to the IRS, you reveal the rampaging
>>> illogic in your defense of unequal enforcement tax laws nationwide.
>>
>> Of course you wouldn't know logic if it whacked you upside the head..
>
> I'm waiting for enlightenment on this issue. Do you have any?
> Apparently not.
Well we're not in Kansas any more Toto. Tell you what, in your reality does
2+2 still equal 4?
>>>
>>>> 5) Did it never occur to you (sometimes I ask questions I already know the
>>>> answer to) that states have opposing laws for a reason? Hint: Read up on
>>>> the historical background on the states and go back about five hundred
>>>> years
>>>> or so.
>>>
>>> Then why not let the IRS collect taxes ONLY from state governments and
>>> allow each state to enforce the collection from individuals any way
>>> they want? What's the purpose of the IRS have multiple offices in
>>> EVERY state if each state can do whatever they want?
>>
>> You dare mention the 14th amendment and then conveniently ignore the 10th?
>
> Nope. The tenth trumps the fourteenth -- or WOULD if we had a
> legitimate federal government. I was just wondering what YOU think is
> the meaning of one or most precious and important founding axioms:
> "All Men are equal under the law".
What I think isn't relevant. However it didn't escape my notice that you
couldn't think of a clever copout. I nailed your ass and you didn't even
know it.
Dale Eastman
>>From: Dale Eastman dalere...@sprintmail.com
>>Date: 8/2/03 8:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3F2C7D47...@sprintmail.com>
>
>
>>Since this stuff was posted, I have received my copy of
>>Theft-By-Deception and viewed it.
>>
>>He tells no one to do anything, illegal or otherwise... Not even to
>>rewind the tape.>
>
>
> Let's see? the tape is entitled, "Theft-By-Deception." Yet you maintain he is
> not telling anyone to do anything.
>
> Simple question for a Simpleton Eastman:
> What does the title mean?
The meaning of the title is a description of what the tape addresses.
The tape addresses some of the history of the current sections 61 & 861
and the predecessor of those same sections.
The deception part deals with how the law WAS re written to move
regulations physically apart and then break any guiding linkages that
showed the relationships between these same regulations.
>>> The tapes may already prove otherwise,
>>
>>Correctly stated assumptive statement. Key word being MAY.>
>
>
>>This is MY first person testimony of what I have personally viewed.
>>My assertion is grounded in the reality of what is on the tape and is
>>provable.>
>
>
> And we are to accept the testimony of someone who reads the 861 argument and
> concludes that he is not sure;
Yes. Because I can play the video to prove my testimony.
My testimony is, "these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever."
My testimony is, "He tells no one to do anything, illegal or
otherwise... Not even to rewind the tape."
> when any one with a smidgen of intelligence and
> common sense would read the regulation and the argument and conclude that the
> argument is moronic gibberish?
>
I'll not make any conclusions re: 861 tax liability until I get there.
The path to 'getting there' goes through the 7 questions regarding 1 cite.
>
>>I hereby counter, these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
>>could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
>>law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever.>
>
>
> And what does the tile of the tape mean?
Click the link and so we can make arrangements for you to view the
video, then come to Chicago.
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
>>Re-addressing your prior comment:
>>
>>>Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
>>>statements on them.>
>>
>
>>That will be very easy. All that has to be done is play the video for
>>the jury.>
>
>
> And he will be convicted or at best found not guilty because of being either
> terminally insane or stupid.
>
And you base this assertion on having NOT viewed the video?
>
>>>and I can assure you the government already ~had~ a copy of Larken's
>>>tape well before the search warrant was issued.>
>>
>
>>And having finally viewed the tape that this big feud is all about,
>>I can assure you that the government had no cause to confiscate the
>>tapes they did. They had the same information available to them that I
>>did when I viewed the video.>
>
>
> And we are to accept the opinion of someone who has no understanding of the law
> ("I am not sure," is your position) and how it operates, why?
>
You don't need to accept my opinion "that the government had no cause to
confiscate the tapes they did", you can view the tape.
IIRC several in this group have been challenged to cite anything on the
tape that incites illegal action, or is not protected under the First
Amendment.
To my knowledge, no one has cited anything in the video that would
incite anyone to do something illegal or would not be protected under
the First Amendment.
And none of you can even address this challenge until you have viewed
the video.
>
>>Folks, there's definitely something wrong here.>
>
>
> Yes, your IQ!
>
>
And this comment makes your logical point how?
>>If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
>>interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
>
>
> Why? They can send for their own. Just remember Mortimer Oinky Snerd and you
> have said Larken will send it free. that means they can save themselves the
> expense of driving to yoiur place to view this precious tape.
>
Yes they could send for their own.
Then again, they could preview the tape for the cost of some
transportation and then decide, as I did, that they need to show the
video all of their friends and aquaintances, at which time they would be
willing to purchase their own copies.
Your assumption might not be correct about the expense of driving. I
will also take the tape to the screenings if there are enough people in
a given community that are interested.
So, replacing the link that you deleted:
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
>
>>On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
>
>
> Lie #1 on your part:
>
> They did not push, they rang the doorbell or knocked. Mr. Rose opened the door,
> he was shown the warrwent and he let them in.
Baseless counter assertion.
My assertion is based upon Mr. Larken's own words, as broadcast on KCXL.
The exerpt is here:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/Kickdoor.wav 43KB.
The entire context is here:
http://www.discoveryarchives.com/larken/larken13.ram
The entire archive of Mr. Rose on KCXL is here:
http://www.discoveryarchives.com/larken.html
>>and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
>>Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.>
>
>
> A statement based solely on Barken Larken's say so. Let's see, does Barken have
> a personal interest in getting you to beleive this?
If they would not have taken the tapes, OR if they had given them back
(except 1 copy) We would not be having this dialog, because no first
amendment violation would have occured.
Since they have not given back tapes that only guide one through the
maze of tax law (whether correctly or not), Then obviously it has
nothing to do with preparing a case.
I have seen the video in question. This is clearly a first amendment
violation. It doesn't matter what you say to the contrary. Anybody that
views the tape will know this also. So:
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
>
>
>>As of August 2, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
>>Rose for the commission of any crime.
>
>
> So you believe that three months is long enough for a proper investigation. On
> what do you base this?
I did not say "three months is long enough for a proper investigation."
But since you raised this issue, I will answer.
The issue has been on the IRS' and / or the DOJ'S desk since:
4/18/2000 <http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/case1/transcript1.html>
October 4, 2001
<http://www.taxableincome.net/extortion/thugs/silence-letter.html>
November 21, 2001 <http://www.taxableincome.net/debate/war/ashcroft2.html>
July 25, 2002
<http://www.taxableincome.net/debate/war/oconnor.html>
So, "three months" IS a long enough time for a proper investigation when
that "three months" is actually more like "three years".
> Have you ever conducted an investigation of any kind
> whose ultimate purpose might be to charge someone with a crime, bring them to
> trial.
I suppose you have. Kinda like these investigations:
http://forejustice.org/db/innocents.html
>
> If not, your opinion on how long the IRS should have to reach a decision is
> worthless.
>
You are forgetting that the ISSUE is the unlawful taking of First
Amendment protected videos.
>
>>This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
>>paid income tax since 1996>
>
>
> In other words, he admits to having committed a crime. A wants the world to
> inow about it, why? He has a martyr complex maybe? He thinks he can sway public
> opinion in such a manner that he is somehow going to be spared having to pay
> the taxes he owes plus penalties and interest andf possibly jail time?
>
> Get real!!
Again, You are forgetting that the ISSUE is the unlawful taking of First
Amendment protected videos.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
As of August 3, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
paid income tax since 1996
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
Dale Eastman
> But one thing I can guarnatee you, Mortimer Oinky Snerd,
> What an idiot!!
esenter
Toto wrote:
I was just wondering what YOU think is
> the meaning of one or most precious and important founding axioms:
> "All Men are equal under the law".
The fact that 5th Circuit Court of Appeals may interpret the law
differently than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not affect the
principle that "All Men are equal under the law". It just means that
there may be an issue ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review.
The IRS operates across various jurisdictions. How the law is FINALLY
decided is an issue of appellate review, standards of review, and
jurisdiction.
Just because you may disagree with a single decision, doesn't mean the
whole system is broken.
Do you have a problem with the system itself, or maybe you just don't
understand how the system works?
Geoffrey F. Green
Toto <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote:
> The tenth trumps the fourteenth -- or WOULD if we had a
> legitimate federal government.
Why would the tenth trump the fourteenth? What rule of interpretation
is that? Wouldn't the one passed eigthy years later trump? Or does
the eighteenth amendment likewise trump the twenty-first? Is the
twenty-fifth amendment invalid because it contradicts the text of the
original Constitution?
- geoff
--
Visit http://PostingUp.net
All college basketball, no Andy Katz
esenter
Dale Eastman wrote:
> My testimony is, "these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
> could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
> law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever."
> My testimony is, "He tells no one to do anything, illegal or
> otherwise... Not even to rewind the tape."
>
Fact: Rose offers this tape to explain why he has decided not to file
and pay income taxes. He gives his opinion as to what the tax laws mean
and require the people to do.
"IF" what Rose has presented on this tape is wrong, then he has
recorded his confession to a crime. The fact that he distributes and
promotes his position on these tapes makes him a candidate for violating
26 USC 7206 (2): "(2) Aid or assistance
Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises
the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any
matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return,
affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is
false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or
fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized
or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or
document;
"IF" someone were to take this tape and stop filing and paying income
taxes because they have agreed with Rose in respect to the tax laws,
then the argument can be made that Rose has "aided or assisted" contrary
to 7206.
Of course, the whole case hinges on Rose being wrong about the law which
some judge has already decided probable cause exists to support the warrant.
>
> If they would not have taken the tapes, OR if they had given them back
> (except 1 copy) We would not be having this dialog, because no first
> amendment violation would have occured.
Your problem is that "IF" those tapes depict a crime, there is no First
Amendment protection.
>
> Since they have not given back tapes that only guide one through the
> maze of tax law (whether correctly or not), Then obviously it has
> nothing to do with preparing a case.
He won't get back the tapes until he proves he is correct on his
interpretation of the tax laws.
>
> I have seen the video in question. This is clearly a first amendment
> violation. It doesn't matter what you say to the contrary.
Well, the court will decide that.
Anybody that
> views the tape will know this also.
Hey, that's Rose's passive aggressive technique. "There is no way that
I am wrong, therefore, if you don't agree with me, you don't exist."
>>> This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed
>>> or paid income tax since 1996>
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, he admits to having committed a crime. A wants the
>> world to
>> inow about it, why? He has a martyr complex maybe? He thinks he can
>> sway public
>> opinion in such a manner that he is somehow going to be spared having
>> to pay
>> the taxes he owes plus penalties and interest andf possibly jail time?
>>
>> Get real!!
>
>
> Again, You are forgetting that the ISSUE is the unlawful taking of First
> Amendment protected videos.
>
>
Again, there is no First Amendment issue IF Rose is wrong about the tax
laws. Rose had his chance to test his theory by filing a suit for a
refund in U.S. District Court. The fact that he promotes his tapes as
the truth contrary to the well known position of the IRS makes it FRAUD.
XCobraJock
>> Nothing you wrote below refutes the existence of anarchy.
>
>And you provide no evidence to support it either.
I didn't have to -- YOU provided it when you asserted that right
and wrong can change from one geographical location to another.
The question, lest we forget where this started, is:
1) If the IRS is not bound by tax court decisions, why do they matter
for anyone else? (The IRM says they are not bound by them.)
2) If, despite having been told by tax court that they are bound
by the regulations (as in the case of allowing a taxpayer to record
an appeals meeting), the IRS can ignore its own regulations (and
continue to deny taxpayers the opportunity to record meetings),
then why would anyone have any reason to believe tax court trumps
what the regulations say under 861?
If the court in one instance can rule onw way for one taxpayer, and
another for a different taxpayer, why would anyone give a flyin' fart
what tax court says in any single unique case abotu 861?
Care to answer?
--XCobraJock
esenter
XCobraJock wrote:
>
> If the court in one instance can rule onw way for one taxpayer, and
> another for a different taxpayer, why would anyone give a flyin' fart
> what tax court says in any single unique case abotu 861?
>
> Care to answer?
Because the Tax Court is bound by the precedence of the Circuit Court of
Appeals in which the petitioner resides, there may be different
decisions on the same issue. So far, all of the courts have held your
861 nonsense to be stupid.
It called the Rule of Law. The farthest thing from anarchy.
Why don't you file your suit for refund, malloy? All talk, no action, eh?
Dale Eastman
>
>
> Dale Eastman wrote:
>
>> My testimony is, "these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even
>> remotely could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person
>> to break any law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any
>> action what so ever."
>> My testimony is, "He tells no one to do anything, illegal or
>> otherwise... Not even to rewind the tape."
>>
>
> Fact: Rose offers this tape to explain why he has decided not to file
> and pay income taxes.
Wrong. Mr. Rose does not offer this tape to explain why he has decided
to not file and pay income taxes.
It is MY assertion that this tape explains why he has not filed or paid
income taxes.
Mr. Rose appears to offer this tape for the purpose of saying "hey look
what I found."
Contrary to all the name calling and other smears in this group.
What I speak of in this thread is that I have studied a situation that
passed the duck test. It walks like censorship, it (and you) talks like
censorship.
Censorship is censorship, regardless of the legalistic or politically
correct prose it is wrapped in.
>He gives his opinion as to what the tax laws mean
Right. His opinion. And you are saying that expressing his opinion does
not come under the protection of the First Amendment?
> "IF" what Rose has presented on this tape is wrong, then he has
> recorded his confession to a crime.
No he hasn't. He is giving his opinion. You just said so. Just look up a
few lines.
> The fact that he distributes and
> promotes his position on these tapes makes him a candidate for violating
> 26 USC 7206 (2): "(2) Aid or assistance
> Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises
> the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any
> matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return,
> affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is
> false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or
> fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized
> or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or
> document;
>
> "IF" someone were to take this tape and stop filing and paying income
> taxes because they have agreed with Rose in respect to the tax laws,
> then the argument can be made that Rose has "aided or assisted" contrary
> to 7206.
Wrong.
The website supplies the following caveat emptor,
“So why should I take his word for anything?”
You shouldn’t. You are personally responsible
for determining your own tax liability.
Blindly believing assertions—whether from
tax professionals or Mr. Rose—does not negate
that responsibility. We advise determining the
amount of your tax liability based entirely upon
the actual federal statutes and regulations.
It is not Mr. Rose’s intention that anyone “take his word” for anything.
The statutes and regulations say what they say,
whether they are pointed out to you by Charles Manson,
Larken Rose, or the Commissioner of the IRS. If after
reading Mr. Rose's Taxable Income report, and examining
the actual statutes and regulations, you believe your
income is taxable, file your return and pay up.
The tape simply points out; what the regs & codes say; what the
predecessor regs & codes said; what the predecessor connecting
references (links) said; what the current connecting references say;
when the differences are.
------
As an analogy, let us assume that you own a deer hunting rifle. If you
had this (assumed) deer hunting rifle, would you register it with the
secretary of the treasure according to the law? Do you know which law I
am referring to?
------
> Of course, the whole case hinges on Rose being wrong about the law which
> some judge has already decided probable cause exists to support the
> warrant.
>
The fallacy of your logic here is that if the only thing needed to prove
guilt was "probable cause", then there would be no need to go to court.
Just have the guilty go "dig a hole" and take a "shower".
And since not every case ends with guilt established IN SPITE of
"probable cause" means your assertion of Mr. Rose's ALLEGED criminal
speech appears to be pure assumption on your part.
(my assumption)
Let me make sure.
Mr. Senter, Have you viewed the video, theft by deception?
>
>>
>> If they would not have taken the tapes, OR if they had given them back
>> (except 1 copy) We would not be having this dialog, because no first
>> amendment violation would have occured.
>
>
> Your problem is that "IF" those tapes depict a crime, there is no First
> Amendment protection.
Right. The big "IF".
Having viewed the tape.....
And the bumper stickers they seized? Does this depict a crime?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/bumpstik.jpg 32KB
>>
>> Since they have not given back tapes that only guide one through the
>> maze of tax law (whether correctly or not), Then obviously it has
>> nothing to do with preparing a case.
>
>
> He won't get back the tapes until he proves he is correct on his
> interpretation of the tax laws.
>
Wrong. All he has to prove is that there is protected speech on the
tapes....
And the bumper stickers.
>>
>> I have seen the video in question. This is clearly a first amendment
>> violation. It doesn't matter what you say to the contrary.
>
>
> Well, the court will decide that.
The court? Which court? The tax court? The tax court is going to decide
if the seizure was an act of censorship?
Don't think so. The illegal censorship is separate from the other charges.
To review, the charges, (a misnomer because they haven't been filed), are:
1) Failing to file and pay (26 USC §§ 7201, 7203).
2) Filing false claims for refund (26 USC § 7206(1) and 18 USC § 287)
3) Attempted to "corruptly" or forcibly interfere with the
administration of the tax laws (26 USC § 7212(a)).
4) Conspiring to commit some offense (18 USC § 371). (We don't know
WHAT supposed offense, because the affidavit of probable cause is still
sealed.)
>
>
> Anybody that
>
>> views the tape will know this also.
>
Have you viewed the tape?
Can you cite anything on the tape that even remotely promotes violations
of the law?
Which graphic or audio specifically promotes said alleged violations?
<snip stuff>
>>
>>
>> Again, You are forgetting that the ISSUE is the unlawful taking of
>> First Amendment protected videos.
>>
>>
>
> Again, there is no First Amendment issue IF Rose is wrong about the tax
> laws.
What crime does this promote:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/bumpstik.jpg 32KB
that makes it correct for the government to impound his supply of bumper
stickers?
> Rose had his chance to test his theory by filing a suit for a
> refund in U.S. District Court.
> The fact that he promotes his tapes as
> the truth contrary to the well known position of the IRS makes it FRAUD.
What well known position? The one where the IRS refuses to answer, "Is
section 861 and the sections thereunder the sections I use to determine
my sources of income for the purpose of the income tax?
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
As of August 3, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
paid income tax since 1996
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
XCobraJock
are required to provide prior to my filing a suit, I may do that.
--XCobraJock
"esenter" <ese...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3F2D67AD...@airmail.net...
Dave Woods, EA
lndXa.38$XS1.3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "XCobraJock"
<X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> "Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:BB52BB78.95CB%d.w...@verizon.net...
>
>>> Nothing you wrote below refutes the existence of anarchy.
>>
>> And you provide no evidence to support it either.
>
> I didn't have to -- YOU provided it when you asserted that right
> and wrong can change from one geographical location to another.
And it does.
> The question, lest we forget where this started, is:
>
> 1) If the IRS is not bound by tax court decisions, why do they matter
> for anyone else? (The IRM says they are not bound by them.)
And you forget that they are bound by that decision....in the case the
decision is made for.
> 2) If, despite having been told by tax court that they are bound
> by the regulations (as in the case of allowing a taxpayer to record
> an appeals meeting), the IRS can ignore its own regulations (and
> continue to deny taxpayers the opportunity to record meetings),
> then why would anyone have any reason to believe tax court trumps
> what the regulations say under 861?
Well for one thing, Treasury Regulations are not law and although they may
carry the force and effect of law, can be ignored by a court if the court
feels the regulation is wrong. Aside from that, again you seem to forget
the fact that Tax Court is not a court of final jurisdiction or even
appellate jurisdiction.
> If the court in one instance can rule onw way for one taxpayer, and
> another for a different taxpayer, why would anyone give a flyin' fart
> what tax court says in any single unique case abotu 861?
>
> Care to answer?
Nice coherent argument. Your problem is that NO court has ever upheld the
861 argument, in fact at this point I understand that even arguing the issue
in most courts brings sanctions. It's not a matter of a unique case being
rejected on the argument, It's EVERY case being rejected.
XCobraJock
--XCobraJock
"Dave Woods, EA" <d.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BB52F2B9.95EC%d.w...@verizon.net...
Gray Shockley
(in message <5igXa.608$KP4.43...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
> And that's anarchy.
>
> --XCobraJock
Uh, no, it's not, Mr Co Bra.
Not in the languages of this planet.
However, if you're an alien (say, through the portal at Roswell, NM), there
may be special people who will help you with your language difficulties.
You need to understand that you aliens from the planet, Gibber, use many of
the same words as do human beings and this can easily lead to confusion on
the part of those who fly in from way out space.
I hope this helps, Mr Bra.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/3/03 10:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F2D3FAA...@sprintmail.com>
>"Did you view the video, Mr. Maf, yes or no?"
Since I know more than you do about what his position is, what do you think?
And what is the factual basis of your thought outside of your own prejudice?
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/3/03 10:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F2D47C5...@sprintmail.com>
>> Simple question for a Simpleton Eastman:
>> What does the title mean?>
>The meaning of the title is a description of what the tape addresses.
Then you agree that his basic position is that the law and the regulations
based on that law are desinged to decieve, therefore, fraudulent.
That being the case, you agree he is in fact advocating that everyone ignore
the law like he does and not file their taxes because they, according to him,
don't have to.
>The tape addresses some of the history of the current sections 61 & 861
>and the predecessor of those same sections.>
>The deception part deals with how the law WAS re written to move
>regulations physically apart and then break any guiding linkages that
>showed the relationships between these same regulations.>
Then you agree his purpose is to to attempt to prove that the law and
regulations are deceptive, therby perpetrating a fraud.
That being the case, you agree he is in fact advocating that everyone ignore
the law like he does and not file their taxes because they, according to him,
don't have to.
>>>> The tapes may already prove otherwise,
>>>
>>>Correctly stated assumptive statement. Key word being MAY.>
>>
>>
>>>This is MY first person testimony of what I have personally viewed.
>>>My assertion is grounded in the reality of what is on the tape and is
>>>provable.>
>>
>>
>> And we are to accept the testimony of someone who reads the 861 argument
>and
>> concludes that he is not sure;>
>Yes. Because I can play the video to prove my testimony.>
Using your own words above, I just proved that your testimony does not agree
with what you wrote.
>My testimony is, "these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
>could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
>law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever."
Try again, moron. Above you did in fact agree that he lays out a supposed case
that the law and regulations are deceptive and, therfore, a fraud.
When someone points out a supposed fraud to you, what is their purpose?
>My testimony is, "He tells no one to do anything, illegal or
>otherwise... Not even to rewind the tape.">
I have already shown that your testimony is worthless.
>> when any one with a smidgen of intelligence and
>> common sense would read the regulation and the argument and conclude that
>the
>> argument is moronic gibberish?
>>
>I'll not make any conclusions re: 861 tax liability until I get there.
>The path to 'getting there' goes through the 7 questions regarding 1 cite.>
>>>I hereby counter, these tapes DO NOT contain anything that even remotely
>>>could be presumed to advise, indicate, or incite any person to break any
>>>law, Nor does this tape advise any person to take any action what so ever.>
>>
>>
>> And what does the tile of the tape mean?
>
>Click the link and so we can make arrangements for you to view the
>video, then come to Chicago.
>mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
>
>>>Re-addressing your prior comment:
>>>
>>>>Well, Larken would have to prove those tapes carried First Amendment
>>>>statements on them.>
>>>
>>
>>>That will be very easy. All that has to be done is play the video for
>>>the jury.>
>>
>>
>> And he will be convicted or at best found not guilty because of being
>either
>> terminally insane or stupid.
>>
>
>And you base this assertion on having NOT viewed the video?>
Again, an assumption on your part for which you have no basis.
We know his tape containes nothing that he and lately his alter ego, Motimer
Oinky Snerd and you have not said here and on his web site.
Every one of his argumets have been shown over and over again to be worthless
gibberish. And his arguments have been ruled nonsensical and frevoulous by
several courts.
So, contrary to your simple minded belief, I have a lot on my side for my
position about your testimony about what he tape does or does not do.
>>>>and I can assure you the government already ~had~ a copy of Larken's
>>>>tape well before the search warrant was issued.>
>>>
>>
>>>And having finally viewed the tape that this big feud is all about,
>>>I can assure you that the government had no cause to confiscate the
>>>tapes they did. They had the same information available to them that I
>>>did when I viewed the video.>
>>
>>
>> And we are to accept the opinion of someone who has no understanding of the
>law
>> ("I am not sure," is your position) and how it operates, why?
>>
>
>You don't need to accept my opinion "that the government had no cause to
>confiscate the tapes they did", you can view the tape.>
But earlier in this note, I showed that your opinion is inconsitent with your
description.
>IIRC several in this group have been challenged to cite anything on the
>tape that incites illegal action, or is not protected under the First
>Amendment.>
>To my knowledge, no one has cited anything in the video that would
>incite anyone to do something illegal or would not be protected under
>the First Amendment.>
Calling the law and regulations decpetive so that they are fraudulent and,
therfore, he does not have to pay taxes on his income, in your simple mind is
not advocating anything?
>And none of you can even address this challenge until you have viewed
>the video.>
The challenge was answered long before you arrived on teh scene with your
moronic hope that Barken Larken is right.
>>>Folks, there's definitely something wrong here.>
>>
>>
>> Yes, your IQ!
>And this comment makes your logical point how?>
Larken's "argument" has been shown to be gibberish over and over again from
long beofre you arrived here. The Courts have ruled the arguments to be without
merit and frevolous. Yet you persist in your position. By defintion that means
you either have a low IQ or are mentally deranged or both.
>>>If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
>>>interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
>>
>>
>> Why? They can send for their own. Just remember Mortimer Oinky Snerd and
>you
>> have said Larken will send it free. that means they can save themselves the
>> expense of driving to yoiur place to view this precious tape.
>>
>
>Yes they could send for their own.
>Then again, they could preview the tape for the cost of some
>transportation and then decide, as I did, that they need to show the
>video all of their friends and aquaintances, at which time they would be
>willing to purchase their own copies.>
>Your assumption might not be correct about the expense of driving. I
>will also take the tape to the screenings if there are enough people in
>a given community that are interested.>
In other words, you are willing to help Larken perpetuate his fraud.
>>>On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
>>
>>
>> Lie #1 on your part:
>>
>> They did not push, they rang the doorbell or knocked. Mr. Rose opened the
>door,
>> he was shown the warrwent and he let them in.>
>Baseless counter assertion.
How baseless? Because my description of what happened is different from
Larken's?
>My assertion is based upon Mr. Larken's own words, as broadcast on KCXL.
And since Mr. Larken is the soul of truthfulness and integrity, we are supposed
to believe him? When did he acquire this mantal?
Keep in mind his position has been shown to be nonsense. Yet he persists in it.
Thurston Bell who knows the 861 argument better than Larken ever will had the
courts order him to post a notice on his web site, in effect, saying it was all
nonsense.
>The exerpt is here:
>http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/Kickdoor.wav 43KB.
>The entire context is here:
>http://www.discoveryarchives.com/larken/larken13.ram
>The entire archive of Mr. Rose on KCXL is here:
>http://www.discoveryarchives.com/larken.html
>
>>>and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
>>>Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.>
>>
>>
>> A statement based solely on Barken Larken's say so. Let's see, does Barken
>have
>> a personal interest in getting you to beleive this?
>
>If they would not have taken the tapes, OR if they had given them back
>(except 1 copy) We would not be having this dialog, because no first
>amendment violation would have occured.>
Has there been ANY legal decision saying that a First Amendment violation
occurred vis a vis Mr. Larken?
Or is just your (and Mr. Larken's) opinion? If so where did you study law?
>Since they have not given back tapes that only guide one through the
>maze of tax law (whether correctly or not), Then obviously it has
>nothing to do with preparing a case.>
How do you know? Have you ever prepared a case?
>I have seen the video in question. This is clearly a first amendment
>violation.
Earlier in this note, using your own words, I showed that your opinion is not
based even on the facts as you present them.
> It doesn't matter what you say to the contrary. Anybody that
>views the tape will know this also. So:>
And if the Courts rule otherwise, will it still be your position? They did so
in Mr, Bell's case.
>> So you believe that three months is long enough for a proper investigation.
>On
>> what do you base this?
>
>I did not say "three months is long enough for a proper investigation.">
Sure you did! That is EXACTLY what you imply by your statement.
>But since you raised this issue, I will answer.>
>The issue has been on the IRS' and / or the DOJ'S desk since:4/18/2000 >
Has it? That may be when Mr. Larken wrote his letter. That has nothing to do
with when an investigation was started.
>So, "three months" IS a long enough time for a proper investigation when
>that "three months" is actually more like "three years".>
You really have no clue? They have not been investigating him for 3 years.
>> Have you ever conducted an investigation of any kind
>> whose ultimate purpose might be to charge someone with a crime, bring them
>to
>> trial.
>
>I suppose you have. Kinda like these investigations:>
Yes I have!
>> If not, your opinion on how long the IRS should have to reach a decision is
>> worthless.
>>
>
>You are forgetting that the ISSUE is the unlawful taking of First
>Amendment protected videos.>
You do know that commercial speech does not have the same protection you do as
an individual, don't you?
>>>This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
>>>paid income tax since 1996>
>> In other words, he admits to having committed a crime. A wants the world to
>> inow about it, why? He has a martyr complex maybe? He thinks he can sway
>public
>> opinion in such a manner that he is somehow going to be spared having to
>pay
>> the taxes he owes plus penalties and interest andf possibly jail time?
>>
>> Get real!!
>Again, You are forgetting that the ISSUE is the unlawful taking of First
>Amendment protected videos.
And how is commericial speech protected under the law? Can an advertiser say,
for example, that his product cures cancer when it does nothing of the sort?
Give it up. Aside from all the other gibberish you have written since you
arrived here, in this note alone I have shown that your description of the tape
and your opinion don't follow from each other. We have also shown that the only
proof for the moronic inlfammarory asteements you make about what the
Government agents did and said when executring the warrent on Mr, Larken are
based solely on Mr. Larken words and, at best, can be dismissed as being
sef-serving.
In short, as long as you parrot Mr. Larken's story, you are just like Mortimer
Oinky Snerd.
PaulMaf
>Date: 8/3/03 1:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F2D7267...@sprintmail.com>
>Wrong. Mr. Rose does not offer this tape to explain why he has decided
>to not file and pay income taxes.>
You moron! You just contradicted what you said in your reply to my note as to
what his purpose is.
>Mr. Rose appears to offer this tape for the purpose of saying "hey look
>what I found."
But what he found is not there in the law. So he is selling something that is
false as factual. That is against the law.
>What I speak of in this thread is that I have studied a situation that
>passed the duck test. It walks like censorship, it (and you) talks like
>censorship.
>Censorship is censorship, regardless of the legalistic or politically
>correct prose it is wrapped in.>
So it is your positon that someone, for examplpe, selling a false cure for
cancer, should not be stopped from selling that cure until it is proven in
court that his cure does nothing. That is the gist of your argument.
>>He gives his opinion as to what the tax laws mean >
>Right. His opinion. And you are saying that expressing his opinion does
>not come under the protection of the First Amendment?>
He, as well as you can express your opinion all you want. You just can't sell
it as being factual if it isn't.
Dale Eastman
Your reply did not answer the question.
I acknowledge that you may, even most likely, do know more about his
position than I. I know that you are one of several posters on this
group that take the opposing stance (quite vehemently ). Therefore, you
actually do serve a purpose for me as I go through the issue, step by
step in the other thread.
To answer your first assertion / question out of context see above
paragraph.
To answer your second assertion / question, my factual basis is the Bill
of Rights. My "prejudice" is that the Bill of Rights is just that, a
listing of specific RIGHTS. See specific text below.
Taking your first assertion / question in the context you meant, you
imply that you have seen the video with a statement of superior
knowledge of the subject, however the content of the video is in the
taxable income report that is available for download for free.
The download is a second avenue to the subject matter of the video and
this group could be considered a third. You could have gained the
knowledge from any of these three avenues.
Therefore I will not make any assumtion as to the answer to the question.
Mr. Maf, Did you view the video, yes or no?
----
At issue is the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights of Mr. Rose.
-------------
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.