• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE "SOVEREIGN" AND "SOVEREIGNTY"

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#81
Snoop, thank you for the gesture,

but we don't take more than we need to keep the lights on,

there will probably be a funding drive in Feb or so for the next year,

and I wish you a very Merry Christmas also, to you and your family

we all should be mindful of the 2 things that matter most, family and health
Scorpio, if you have any pull with the mods, I think it might be a good idea for them to pull the purely income tax stuff off this thread and use them to open a new thread on that subject. It might also be a good thing to do with the election stuff too, unless the election stuff is too intertwined with other subjects which belong here.

And, if they could help me find the stuff that I lost on this thread, that would be awesome. That missing stuff is mostly income tax stuff and should go on the proposed new thread on that subject.

Merry Christmas,

Snoop
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,586
Likes
12,668
#82
Yes, let us start by examining the way in which lieyers have muddied up the meaning of the word "income" as written in the 16th to mean anything goobermint thieves can get their grubby little hands upon.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
#83
Scorpio, if you have any pull with the mods, I think it might be a good idea for them to pull the purely income tax stuff off this thread and use them to open a new thread on that subject. It might also be a good thing to do with the election stuff too, unless the election stuff is too intertwined with other subjects which belong here.

And, if they could help me find the stuff that I lost on this thread, that would be awesome. That missing stuff is mostly income tax stuff and should go on the proposed new thread on that subject.

Merry Christmas,

Snoop
Hell ya scorp, we wouldn't want people to understand how the 16'th amendment demonstrates clearly that the legislative intent was to create an income tax on all people in the Federal zone (DC), because the supreme court disallowed putting an unapportioned tax on sovereign State Nationals in the Constitutional Republic.
This made it extremely important for the lieyers to trick naturally sovereign people into voluntarily contracting their sovereign rights away and putting themselves into the Federal zone.

It would be really a shame if people learned the truth about how "our" govt looks after our well being.

Merry Christmas all.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#84
Hell ya scorp, we wouldn't want people to understand how the 16'th amendment demonstrates clearly that the legislative intent was to create an income tax on all people in the Federal zone (DC), because the supreme court disallowed putting an unapportioned tax on sovereign State Nationals in the Constitutional Republic.
This made it extremely important for the lieyers to trick naturally sovereign people into voluntarily contracting their sovereign rights away and putting themselves into the Federal zone.

It would be really a shame if people learned the truth about how "our" govt looks after our well being.

Merry Christmas all.
LIST OF TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PROVEN FAILURES

The tax protester arguments in the links below are not only proven failures, YOU CAN BE FINED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR MERELY COMMUNICATING THEM TO A COURT OR TO THE IRS.
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-ii
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-iii

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

The following is an income tax professor's response to tax protester arguments, point by point.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm

The definition of income
https://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm


Tax protester arguments to avoid raising.
https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/irs-tax-protestor-stack-snipes-personal-finance-robert-wood.html
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#87
1. Contention: Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States and thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.
Some individuals argue that they have rejected citizenship in the United States in favor of state citizenship; therefore, they are relieved of their federal income tax obligations. A variation of this argument is that a person is a free born citizen of a particular state and thus was never a citizen of the United States. The underlying theme of these arguments is the same: the person is not a United States citizen and is not subject to federal tax laws because only United States citizens are subject to these laws.

The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES and of the State wherein they reside.” The Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts. The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2007-22, 2007-1 C.B. 866; Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

In a variation of this argument, taxpayers argue that although they are citizens of the United States, for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code they are non-resident aliens and are subject to taxation only on income that is connected with the conduct of a trade or business. The 11th Circuit rejected this contention as frivolous.

Relevant Case Law:

Taliaferro v. Freeman, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of Mr. Taliaferro’s complaint seeking to enjoin the IRS from collecting taxes assessed against him. The court rejected as meritless his argument that, despite his U.S. citizenship, he is, for purposes of the tax code, a nonresident alien who is subject to taxation only on income that is connected with the conduct of a trade or business.

United States v. Bowden, 402 F. App’x 967 (5th Cir. 2010) – in denying an appeal of a sentence for tax evasion, the 5th Circuit rejected the taxpayer’s argument that he was a sovereign and not subject to the laws of the United States.

United States v. Drachenberg, 623 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2010) – the 2nd Circuit affirmed Drachenberg’s conviction for tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and rejected his argument that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction because he was not a citizen of the United States.

United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) – the 7th Circuit rejected "shop worn" argument that defendant is a citizen of the "Indiana State Republic" and therefore an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of the federal courts.

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the 8th Circuit rejected the Gerads’ contention that they were “not citizens of the United States, but rather ‘Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota’ and, consequently, not subject to taxation” and imposed sanctions “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.”

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) – the 7th Circuit affirmed a tax evasion conviction and rejected Sloan’s argument that the federal tax laws did not apply to him because he was a “freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a ‘master’ – not ‘servant’ – of his government.”

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987) – the 11th Circuit found Ward’s contention that he was not an “individual” located within the jurisdiction of the United States to be “utterly without merit” and affirmed his conviction for tax evasion.

Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1189 (2014) – the court dismissed the possibility of being a citizen of a state but not the United States as “nonsensical” and “backwards; one cannot be a citizen of a State without also being a citizen of the United States. Indeed, citizenship in the United States is “paramount and dominant” over State citizenship.”

Kay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-59, 99 T.C.M. (CCH) 1236 (2010) – the court imposed a $500 penalty under section 6673(a) against James Kay for raising frivolous arguments in the proceeding, including that he “was not born a [U.S.] taxpayer” and that the United States may not tax him because “the United States is a corporation” to which he holds no “allegiance.”

Other Cases: United States v. Sileven, 985 F.2d 962 (8th Cir. 1993); Nevius v. Tomlinson, 113 A.F.T.R.2d 2014-1872 (W.D. Miss. 2014); O'Driscoll v. IRS, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 16, 1991); Bruhwiler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-18, 111 T.C.M. (CCH) 1071 (2016); Carlson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-76, 103 T.C.M. (CCH) 1408 (2012); Callahan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-201, 100 T.C.M. (CCH) 225 (2010); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-169, 98 T.C.M. (CCH) 40 (2009); Knittel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-149, 97 T.C.M. (CCH) 1837 (2009); BlandBarclay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-20, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1119, 1121 (2002); Marsh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2000-11, 79 T.C.M. (CCH) 1327 (2000); Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202-03 (1993).

2. Contention: The “United States” consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves
Some individuals and groups argue that the United States consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and federal enclaves (e.g., American Indian reservations, military bases, etc.) and does not include the “sovereign” states. According to this argument, if a taxpayer does not live within the “United States,” as so defined, he is not subject to the federal tax laws.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. The Supreme Court has “recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens THROUGHOUT THE NATION, NOT JUST IN FEDERAL ENCLAVES." United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)). Courts have uniformly rejected this frivolous contention, and the IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743; Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

Relevant Case Law:

Taliaferro v. Freeman, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit rejected the argument that Congress has taxing authority over only federal enclaves, noting that “[for nearly a century], the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.”

United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 1999) – the court sanctioned Cooper for filing a frivolous appeal wherein he argued that only residents of Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves are subject to the federal tax laws because they alone are citizens of the United States.

United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 1994) – the court rejected the "patently frivolous" argument that defendant was not a resident of any "federal zone" and therefore not subject to federal income tax laws.

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989) – the 9th Circuit imposed monetary damages on Becraft, an attorney, based on his advocacy of frivolous claims, such as that federal laws apply only to United States territories and the District of Columbia, which the court found had “no semblance of merit.”

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) – the court rejected as a “twisted conclusion” the contention “that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States,” and affirmed a conviction for tax evasion.

Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011) – the court described in detail why this argument (based on a misreading of an employment tax provision that includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa within the term “United States”) is frivolous and imposed a $5,000 penalty under section 6673 for maintaining this and other frivolous arguments.

Other Cases: Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1189 (2014); Tiernan v. United States, 2013 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1769 (Fed. Cl. November 12, 2013); Holmes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-42, 99 T.C.M. (CCH) 1165 (2010); Ulloa v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-68, 99 T.C.M. (CCH) 1280 (2010).

3. Contention: Taxpayer is not a “person” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.
Some individuals and groups maintain that they are not a “person” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This argument is based on a tortured misreading of the Code. In a variation of this argument, some individuals and groups argue that IRS correspondences addressed to taxpayers in all CAPITAL LETTERS are not valid. Proponents of this argument claim there is a legal distinction under state law that entities such as corporations are legally addressed in this manner and since taxpayers are not “fictional legal entities,” the correspondence is not valid.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines “person” and sets forth which persons are subject to federal taxes. Section 7701(a)(14) defines “taxpayer” as any person subject to any internal revenue tax and section 7701(a)(1) DEFINES A "PERSON" TO INCLUDE AN INDIVIDUAL, trust, estate, partnership, or corporation. Arguments that an individual is not a “person” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly rejected. A similar argument with respect to the term “individual” has also been rejected. The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2007-22, 2007-1 C.B. 866; Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

Relevant Case Law:

Young v. Commissioner, 551 F.App’x 229, 203 (8th Cir. 2014) – the 8th Circuit rejected as “simply meritless” the taxpayer’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code does not make individuals liable for the payment of federal income taxes, imposing an $8,000 sanction for his frivolous claims.

United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986) – the 3rd Circuit affirmed Karlin’s conviction for failure to file income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was “not a ‘person’ within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203” as “frivolous and requir[ing] no discussion.”

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986) – in affirming a conviction for failure to file income tax returns, the 9th Circuit rejected the taxpayer’s contention that she was not subject to federal tax laws because she was “an absolute, freeborn, and natural individual” and noted that “this argument has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades.”

Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985) – the court said the claim that Biermann was not “a person liable for taxes” was “patently frivolous,” and given the Tax Court’s warning to Biermann that his positions would never be sustained in any court, awarded the government double costs plus attorney’s fees.

Timmins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-86, 113 T.C.M. (CCH) 1412 (T.C. 2017) – the court rejected taxpayer’s argument that he was merely an agent of the taxpayer as frivolous

Balice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-46, 109 T.C.M. (CCH) 1220 (2015) – the taxpayer served interrogatories demanding that the IRS admit that he is not a “person” liable to taxes, among other frivolous contentions. The court granted the IRS a protective order excusing it from answering these frivolous interrogatories and imposed a $25,000 sanction against the taxpayer.

Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1189 (2014) – the court rejected Steven Waltner’s argument that he was not a “person” under section 6671 and imposed a $2,500 sanction against him for making frivolous arguments.

Holmes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-42, 99 T.C.M. (CCH) 1165 (2010) – the court dismissed as “frivolous and groundless” the taxpayer’s claim that correspondences addressed to him in all capital letters are invalid because of “creat[ing] a false legal impression that he is a “fictional legal entity” and not entitled to his constitutional rights,” and imposed a penalty of $10,000 under I.R.C. section 6673.

Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89 (2000) – the court described the argument that Smith “is not a ‘person liable’ for tax” as frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and imposed a penalty for maintaining “frivolous and groundless positions.”

Other Cases: United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996); McCoy v. Internal Revenue Service, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5909 (D. Col.2001).

4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.
This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities on employers to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall NOT be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” WHICH GENERALLY INCLUDES PRIVATE CITIZENS. The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743.

Relevant Case Law:

Taliaferro v. Freeman, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s argument that the federal income tax applies only to federal employees, and ordered sanctions against him up to and including double the government’s costs.

Montero v. Commissioner, 354 F. App’x 173 (5th Cir. 2009) – the 5th Circuit affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the taxpayer for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1986) – the 1st Circuit imposed sanctions on the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected his attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions the taxpayer wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

Briggs v. Commisioner, T.C. Memo 2016-86, 111 T.C.M. (CCH) 1389 (2016) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that wages from private-sector employers are not “income” for Federal income tax purposes. The court imposed a $3,000 penalty against the taxpayer for “persist(ing) in raising frivolous arguments.”

Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1189 (2014) – the court debunked the argument that only federal employees are taxed and imposed $2,500 sanction against the taxpayer for making frivolous arguments contained in Peter Hendrickson’s book “Cracking the Code.”

States v. Hendrickson, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-5395 (E.D. Mich. 2007) – the court permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who filed tax returns on which they falsely reported their income as zero, from filing tax returns and forms based on frivolous claims in Hendrickson’s book, “Cracking the Code,” that only federal, state, or local government workers are liable for federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal taxes.

Other Cases: Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Wis. 1985); Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813 (1994).
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#88
7. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some individuals and groups assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and, thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Law: The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. Numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES A NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT INCOME TAX ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS and that the federal tax laws are valid as applied. In Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, the IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.

Relevant Case Law:

Young v. Commissioner, 551 F.App’x 229, 203 (8th Cir. 2014) – rejecting as “meritless” and “frivolous” Young’s arguments that the income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax, the 8th Circuit sanctioned him $8,000.

Taliaferro v. Freemtran, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of excise taxes but not income taxes, and ordered sanctions against him up to and including double the government’s costs.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) – the 10th Circuit found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1989) – the 9th Circuit, rejecting the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax, affirmed the failure to file conviction.

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518-20 (7th Cir. 1984) – the 7th Circuit rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, upheld assessment of the frivolous return penalty, and imposed sanctions for pursuing “frivolous arguments in bad faith” on top of the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the government.

United States v. Jones, 115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2015-2038 (D. Minn. 2015) – the court rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s arguments that individual income tax is unconstitutional because it is “a direct tax which must be apportioned among the several states,” noting, “It is well-established that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.”

Maxwell v. Internal Revenue Service, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-1571 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) – the court found the taxpayer’s arguments have been “routinely rejected,” principally, that there is no law that imposes an income tax, nor is there a non-apportioned direct tax that could be imposed on him as a supposed non-citizen.

Other Cases: Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Troyer, 113 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2014-387 (D. Wyo. 2013); United States v. Hockensmith, 104 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-5133 (M.D. Pa. 2009); Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005).
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#89
B. The Meaning of Income: Taxable Income and Gross Income

1. Contention: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income.
This argument asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, arguing there is no taxable gain when a person “exchanges” labor for money. Under this theory, wages are not taxable income because people have basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed. A variation of this argument misconstrues section 1341—which deals with computations of tax where a taxpayer restores a substantial amount held under claim of right— to claim a deduction for personal services rendered.

Another similar argument asserts that wages are not subject to taxation where individuals have obtained funds in exchange for their time. Under this theory, wages are not taxable because the Code does not specifically tax “timereimbursement transactions.” Some individuals or groups argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit.

The Law: For federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means ALL INCOME from whatever source derived AND INCLUDES COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. See Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”). In Rev. Rul. 2007-19, 2007-1 C.B. 843, and in Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, the IRS advised taxpayers that wages and other compensation received in exchange for personal services ARE TAXABLE INCOME and warned of the consequences of making frivolous arguments to the contrary.

Section 1341 and the court opinions interpreting it require taxpayers to return funds previously reported as income before they can claim a deduction under claim of right. To have the right to a deduction, the taxpayer should appear to have had an unrestricted right to the income in question, but had to return the money. See Dominion Resources, Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2000). The IRS, in Rev. Rul. 2004-29, 2004-1 C.B. 627, warned taxpayers of the consequences of frivolously claiming the section 1341 deduction when the taxpayer has not repaid an amount previously reported as income.

All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received because of services performed or to be performed in the future. Criminal and civil penalties have been imposed against individuals who rely upon this frivolous argument.

Though a handful of taxpayers who were criminally charged with violations of the internal revenue laws have avoided conviction, taxpayers should not mistake those few cases as indicative that frivolous positions that fail to yield criminal convictions are legitimate or that because one taxpayer escaped conviction, taxpayers are protected from sanctions resulting from noncompliance. While a few defendants have prevailed, the vast majority are convicted. Furthermore, even if a taxpayer is acquitted of criminal charges of noncompliance with federal tax laws, the IRS may pursue any underlying tax liability and is not barred from determining civil penalties. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938); Price v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-204, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2884 (1996).

Relevant Case Law:

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) – Solely on the basis of erroneous jury instructions, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Cheek’s conviction of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns and willfully attempting to evade income taxes. The Court noted, however, that Cheek’s argument that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional “is unsound, not because Cheek’s constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the [law regarding willfulness in criminal cases] does not support such a position.” Id. On remand, Cheek was convicted on all counts and sentenced to jail for a year and a day. Cheek v. United States, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993).

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) – the Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) – referring to the statute’s words “income derived from any source whatever,” the Supreme Court stated, “this language was used by Congress to exert in this field ‘the full measure of its taxing power.’ . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.”

Richmond v. Commissioner, 474 F. App’x 754 (10th Cir. 2012) – the 10th Circuit noted that “it is well-settled that wages and interest payments constitute taxable income” and rejected the petitioner’s argument to the contrary as “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.”

Callahan v. Commissioner, 334 F. App’x 754 (7th Cir. 2009) – the 7th Circuit rejected the petitioner’s argument that only “the gain from wages” (not wages themselves) is taxable, characterizing the argument as “beyond frivolous.”

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) – in rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that the United States’ revenue laws do not impose a tax on income, the 7th Circuit stated that the “Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on all income.”

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1990) – the 3rd Circuit stated that “[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”

Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1985) – the 5th Circuit imposed double costs and attorney’s fees on the taxpayers for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected their argument that taxing wage and salary income is a violation of the constitution because compensation for labor is an exchange rather than gain.

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646 (8th Cir. 1983) – the 8th Circuit upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer’s contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is “totally lacking in merit.”

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) – the 5th Circuit rejected as “meritless” the taxpayer’s contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction. . . .”

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981) – the 9th Circuit affirmed Romero’s conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that “[his] proclaimed belief that he was not a ‘person’ and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not ‘income’ is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect.”

Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517 (2004) – the court found Ms. Sumter’s “claim of right” argument “devoid of any merit” stating that section 1341 only applies to situations in which the claimant is compelled to return the taxed item because of a mistaken presumption that the right held was unrestricted and, thus, the item was previously reported, erroneously, as taxable income. Section 1341 was inapplicable here because she had a continuing, unrestricted claim of right to her salary income and had not been compelled to repay that income in a later tax year.

Carskadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-237, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 234, 236 (2003) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that “wages are not taxable because the Code, which states what is taxable, does not specifically state that ‘time reimbursement transactions,’ a term of art coined by [taxpayers], are taxable.” The court imposed a $2,000 penalty against the taxpayers for raising “only frivolous arguments which can be characterized as tax protester rhetoric.”

Other Cases: Jacobsen v. Commissioner, 551 F. App’x 950 (10th Cir. 2014); Garber v. Commissioner, 500 F. App’x 540 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. White, 769 F. 2d 511 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Bigley, No. 2:14-CV-0729-HRH, 2017 WL 2417911, at *5 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2017); United States v. Jones, No. 14-CV-0227, 2015 WL 6942071, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 10, 2015); United States v. Hopkins, 927 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. N.M. 2013); United States v. Reading, 110 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-5965 (D. Ariz. 2012); Abdo v. United States, 234 F.Supp.2d 553 (M.D.N.C. 2002); Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-67, 111 T.C.M. (CCH) 1299 (2016); Leyshon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2015-104, 109 T.C.M. (CCH) 1535 (2015); Shakir v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-147, 110 T.C.M. (CCH) 137 (2015); Snow v. Commisioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-114, 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1680 (2013); O’Brien v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-326, 104 T.C.M. (CCH) 620 (2012); Pugh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-138, 97 T.C.M. (CCH) 1791 (2009);Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984); Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978).

2. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.
Some individuals and groups maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections. These frivolous assertions are contrary to well-established legal precedent.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b) provides, n 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.” Sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable nor determine or define gross income.

The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making these frivolous arguments. Rev. Rul. 2004-28, 2004-1 C.B. 624 (discussing section 911); Rev. Rul. 2004-30, 2004-1 C.B. 622 (discussing section 861); Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

Some groups and individuals have adopted a variation of this argument and argue that income derived within the United States is actually foreign earned income and then they claim the foreign earned income exclusion. This contention has been rejected as frivolous by the courts.

Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2005) – the court affirmed the conviction and 108-month sentence of Ernest G. Ambort for willfully aiding and assisting in preparing false income tax returns, specifically for seminars he conducted during which he falsely instructed the attendees that they could claim to be nonresident aliens with no domestic-source income, regardless of place of birth, so that they were exempt from most federal income taxes.

Webb v. United States, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-6290 (E.D.N.Y 2007) – the court characterized the argument that income derived within “the 50 states” is foreign sourced income as “an absurd proposition” that is as absurd as arguing that “the State of Illinois is not part of the United States” and as nothing more “than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions.”

Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) – the court stated that “[t]he determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under sections 1 and 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 295 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that income received from sources within the United States is not taxable income, stating that “[t]he 861 argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous.” The court imposed sanctions against the taxpayer as well as against the taxpayer’s attorney in the respective amounts of $15,000 and $10,500 for making such groundless arguments.

Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayers’ argument that their income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f), stating that the “source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.” The court further required them to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because “they . . . wasted limited judicial and administrative resources.”

Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax- protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”

Other Cases: Carmichael v. United States, 128 F. App’x 109 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Hillecke v. United States, 104 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-5267 (D. Or. 2009); United States v. Thompson, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-2421 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-92, 97 T.C.M. (CCH) 1482 (2009); Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000); Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995); Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201 (1993).

3. Contention: Federal Reserve Notes are not income.
Proponents of this contention assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not valid currency and cannot be taxed because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterprets Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The courts have rejected this argument on numerous occasions.


The Law: Congress is empowered “[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits THE STATES from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, BUT DOES NOT LIMIT CONGRESS'S POWER TO DECLARE THE FORM OF LEGAL TENDER. See 31 U.S.C. § 5103; 12 U.S.C. § 411. In an opinion affirming a conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejecting the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not subject to taxation, the court stated that “Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender . . . and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars.” United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111, 1112 (8th Cir. 1978).

Relevant Case Law:

Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 2000) – finding that the defendant’s argument “that imposing sales tax on the sale of legal-tender silver and gold coins unconstitutionally interferes with Congress's exclusive power to coin money is simply untenable,” the 6th Circuit recognized that “most, if not all, of the courts that have considered this issue have held that imposing sales tax on the purchase of gold and silver coins and bullion for cash does not infringe on Congress's constitutional power to coin and regulate currency.”

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984) – the 9th Circuit upheld the taxpayer’s criminal conviction, rejecting as “frivolous” the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely “debts.”

Jones v. Commissioner, 688 F.2d 17 (6th Cir. 1982) – the 6th Circuit found the taxpayer’s claim that his wages were paid in “depreciated bank notes” as clearly without merit and affirmed the Tax Court’s imposition of an addition to tax for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980) – the 10th Circuit affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973) – the 8th Circuit rejected as “clearly frivolous” the assertion “that the only ‘Legal Tender Dollars’ are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed” and affirmed Daly’s conviction for willfully failing to file a return.

United States v. Molen, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2012-5242 (E.D. Cal. 2012) – the court dismissed as frivolous the taxpayer’s arguments “that federal reserve notes, i.e., U.S. dollars, are ‘worthless securities’ and cannot create taxable income” and that “federal reserve notes are merely ‘debts’ that cannot be taxed.”

Other Cases: United States v. Davenport, 824 F.2d 1511 (7th Cir. 1987).

4. Contention: Military retirement pay does not constitute income.
Eligible, retired United States military personnel may receive military retirement pay (MRP) from the agency responsible for disbursing these payments, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Some individuals argue that MRP does not constitute income for federal income tax purposes.


The Law: The Internal Revenue Code defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived, including . . . pensions. I.R.C. § 61(a)(11). Military retirement pay is pension income within the meaning of section 61. Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 205 n.11 (2006); see also Eatinger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-310.


Relevant Case Law:

Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-188, 100 T.C.M. (CCH) 180 (2010) –the Tax Court imposed a $25,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because the taxpayer continued to argue that his military retirement pay was not income and that he did not need to file federal income tax returns.

Mathews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-226, 100 T.C.M. (CCH) 336 (2010) – In addition to penalties for failure to file and pay taxes, the Tax Court imposed a $500 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) against Mr. Mathews for his "frivolous" argument that his military retirement pay, including an amount garnished by the state for child support, was not income.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
#90
Snoop says we are all slaves of the United States. There is no way out. The congress created U.S. Citizens and we are stuck with it.

Slavery is legalized by the 14th amendment.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
2,944
Likes
4,475
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#91
How's that jailhouse-lawyer stuff working for Trump and the Stop-The-Steal people?

There is a lesson here. There are no Majik Wordz in court. If the judges WANT you to win, they will accept your Majik Wordz. Otherwise, even if the words are backed with actual, provable FACT (i.e. Trump) you are tossed out on your nethers.

You win this legal battle the way you win a shooting battle. Get a large group of people behind you and threaten to give your adversaries PAIN...and then, and only then, do they change things.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#92
YOUR COMMENT: Snoop says we are all slaves of the United States.

MY RESPONSE: I say nothing of the sort. I did not write a single word of the law in my last three posts above. I merely highlighted the relevant parts of the law. But, I did not write a single word of the law, here or elsewhere.

But, I will accurately and honestly tell you what the law is, whether I like the law or not (and whether you like the law or not). All I am trying to do is prove to you that you are being lied to about the law by FAKE legal experts who are leading you into serious legal trouble. FAKE legal expert, Rodney "DALE" ("Judge DALE") Class sent a student of his, Harold Stanley, to federal prison for 5 to 8 years by lying to him about the law. I do not want any of my partners here to go to prison for believing the lies of these FAKE legal experts, whether these partners of mine appreciate my help or not. My partners here are not responsible for the lies of these FAKE legal experts, My partners here ARE THE VICTIMS OF THESE FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS.

YOUR COMMENT: There is no way out.

MY COMMENT: Correct. If you remain within the borders of the United State and receive income, you have to income pay taxes, regardless of what you call yourself, regardless of what you call your income and regardless of where you reside in the United States. Freeloading is not allowed. There was once an exception for American Indians who lived on Indian reservations. But, that has been changed. There is still an exception for foreign diplomats (and their families). Other than that, if you live in the U.S. and receive income, you must pay income taxes. Freeloading is not allowed.

YOUR COMMENT: The congress created U.S. Citizens and we are stuck with it.

MY RESPONSE: This is not just about citizenship. The statute also uses the term, "INDIVIDUAL", to define a person who is subject to paying income tax. So, foreign citizens who live and work in the U.S. ARE TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME AS U.S. CITIZENS! Regardless of what you are and regardless of what you call yourself, if you live in the U.S. and receive income, you must pay income taxes. You cannot live in the U.S.and receive income without paying income taxes. Freeloading is not allowed. It is that simple.

YOUR COMMENT: Slavery is legalized by the 14th amendment.

MY RESPONSE: If paying income taxes is slavery, then the 14th amendment is not the sole cause of that slavery. This is because NON-CITIZENS are treated EXACTLY THE SAME AS CITIZENS. The Statute makes ALL INDIVIDUALS (citizens or not, American National or not) subject to income taxes if they live in the U.S. and receive income. It is that simple.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#93
How's that jailhouse-lawyer stuff working for Trump and the Stop-The-Steal people?

There is a lesson here. There are no Majik Wordz in court. If the judges WANT you to win, they will accept your Majik Wordz. Otherwise, even if the words are backed with actual, provable FACT (i.e. Trump) you are tossed out on your nethers.

You win this legal battle the way you win a shooting battle. Get a large group of people behind you and threaten to give your adversaries PAIN...and then, and only then, do they change things.
Hello Casey Jones,

YOUR COMMENT: How's that jailhouse-lawyer stuff working for Trump and the Stop-The-Steal people? There is a lesson here. There are no Majik Wordz in court.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. If the facts establish that you are on the right side of the law, you will wins cases. Magic words do not do that. Word games do not work. They never have. They never will.

YOUR COMMENT: If the judges WANT you to win, they will accept your Majik Wordz.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. If the facts alone establish that you are on the right side of the law, you will win, no matter what the judges want or don't want.

YOUR COMMENT: Otherwise, even if the words are backed with actual, provable FACT (i.e. Trump) you are tossed out on your nethers.

MY RESPONSE" Not so, Aside from standing problems, Trump supporters who filed suit to reverse the election results were unable to show facts which established that there was election fraud. The absence of factual support for fraud is the reason for these 59 consecutive losses in court on that subject.

Do you actually contend (with a straight face) that all 59 courts reached the same exact result because they "WANTED" Trump to lose? Remember the overwhelming majority of these lawsuits were filed in courts packed with Republican appointees. If there had been any real proof of election fraud, these courts would have jumped at the chance to reverse the election results in favor of Trump. But, the people who filed these lawsuits in favor of Trump did not provide them with any factual "cover" for such a result.

The Trump supporters who filed these lawsuits were looking for a crooked court that would pretend there was proof of fraud. But, these Trump supporters were unable to find a crooked court in 59 failed attempts. That speaks to the integrity of these courts, not the other way around as you contend. When 59 courts stacked with Republican appointees all reach the same exact conclusion that there was no proof of fraud in the election, then you can rest assured that there was no proof of fraud in the election.

YOUR COMMENT: You win this legal battle the way you win a shooting battle. Get a large group of people behind you and threaten to give your adversaries PAIN...and then, and only then, do they change things.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. You win legal battles with factual proof which establishes that you are on the right side of the law (or you solicit a Presidential pardon because the factual proof establishes that you are on the wrong side of the law). There is no other way to win in court. .

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

chieftain

Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,658
Likes
3,785
#94
Snoop, whilst your arguments and points are thorough, everything you have mentioned is predicated on concepts the legal system is completely bereft of, integrity and impartiality.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,586
Likes
12,668
#95
MY RESPONSE: Not so. If the facts alone establish that you are on the right side of the law, you will win, no matter what the judges want or don't want.
I don't know what planet you live on. Here on Earth judges are black robed communist traitors that rule based on their own personal feelings.

Here's a nice gift from a Wisconsin supreme court just-us...

"Two counties that are targeted because of their diverse populations. Because they're urban. I presume because they vote Democratic," Karofsky said. "This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism."
"What you want is you want us to overturn this election so that your king can stay in power," Karofsky said. "And that is so un-American. And for you to say that anyone in Wisconsin engaged in fraud, for you to perpetuate that fallacy on the people of Wisconsin and the people of the United States in America, in what has been called the most significant election in our lifetime, is nothing short of shameful."
https://www.wpr.org/liberal-justice-calls-trumps-lawsuit-overturn-election-un-american

Gotta love those carefully constructed "unbiased legal rulings".
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#96
Snoop, whilst your arguments and points are thorough, everything you have mentioned is predicated on concepts the legal system is completely bereft of, integrity and impartiality.
Hello cheiftain,

YOUR COMMENT: Snoop, whilst your arguments and points are thorough, everything you have mentioned is predicated on concepts the legal system is completely bereft of, integrity and impartiality.

MY RESPONSE: The legal system itself is a system of integrity and impartiality. But, it is true that defendants, defense attorneys, juries, witnesses, prosecutors and judges are all human beings and all of them have their own biases and prejudices.

This is precisely why the state criminal legal system is designed the way that it is.

This is precisely the reason why ONLY THE JURY (picked by the parties themselves) determines whether the defendant is factually guilty of a crime and precisely why TRIAL JUDGES (elected by "We the People") are not allowed to make that determination.

This is precisely why ONLY THE TRIAL JUDGE (elected by "We the People") determines questions of law (the meaning of a statute rule or case law and whether the statute, rule or case law is being followed) and precisely why the JURY are not allowed to make that determination.

This is precisely why ONLY THE ELECTED LAWMAKERS (elected by "We the People") determine what is a crime and what is not a crime and precisely why NEITHER THE JUDGE NOR THE JURY makes that determination.

This is precisely why ELECTED LAWMAKERS (elected by "We the People") determine the sentence to be imposed if the defendant is found guilty (usually based on a point system taking the defendant's criminal history into account) and precisely why THE TRIAL JUDGE (elected by "We the People") has so little discretion in the sentence imposed.

The fundamental idea in our republic and in our legal system is TO DIVIDE THE POWERS OF EVERY PARTY INVOLVED TO AVOID THE ACCUMULATION OF POWER IN ANY ONE BRANCH OR PARTY.

This design was intended to reduce the effect of a single human being's bias and prejudice in the legal system.

With Respect,

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#97
I don't know what planet you live on. Here on Earth judges are black robed communist traitors that rule based on their own personal feelings.

Here's a nice gift from a Wisconsin supreme court just-us...

https://www.wpr.org/liberal-justice-calls-trumps-lawsuit-overturn-election-un-american

Gotta love those carefully constructed "unbiased legal rulings".

This text, if authentic, conclusively demonstrates that this state Supreme Court Justice saw right through this false and fraudulent lawsuit. The wrong doer here is not the Justice who saw through this false and fraudulent lawsuit. The wrongdoer is the treasonous lawyer who filed the false and fraudulent lawsuit in the fist place. This Justice treated this treasonous lawyer exactly as he/she should have. Judges and Justices get pissed off when a treasonous charlatan commits such an obvious fraud on the court.

To file an "election fraud" lawsuit and state to a judge that there was "election fraud" when you have no factual evidence of "election fraud" IS ITSELF AN ACT OF FRAUD!

"What you want is you [really] want us to overturn this election so that your king [an unelected ruler] can stay in power," Karofsky said. "And that is so un-American [because Americans ELECT their own government]. And for you to say that anyone in Wisconsin ENGAGED IN FRAUD, for you to perpetuate THAT FALLACY on the people of Wisconsin and the people of the United States in America, in what has been called the most significant election in our lifetime, IS NOTHING SHORT OF SHAMEFUL."

To file an "election fraud" lawsuit and state to a judge that there was "election fraud" when you have no factual evidence of "election fraud" IS ITSELF AN ACT OF FRAUD!

With respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

chieftain

Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,658
Likes
3,785
#98
defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges are all human beings and all of them have their own biases and prejudices.
These very people make up the "system" snoop. To separate them from the processes, legislation and other paperwork is erroneous at best and quite dangerous at worst. The system is corrupt because the participants are corrupt.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,586
Likes
12,668
#99
This text, if authentic, conclusively demonstrates that this state Supreme Court Justice saw right through this false and fraudulent lawsuit. The wrong doer here is not the Justice who saw through this false and fraudulent lawsuit, but the treasonous lawyer who filed the false and fraudulent lawsuit in the fist place.
Plainly, you're completely full of shit.

I did provide a link, but of course you're too busy worshipping your priests of legalese to bother with anything that may cast doubt upon your religious beliefs.

She didn't make a legal argument, she wouldn't hear the evidence because she's a power tripping regressive loser that "practices" law.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
These very people make up the "system" snoop. To separate them from the processes, legislation and other paperwork is erroneous at best and quite dangerous at worst. The system is corrupt because the participants are corrupt.
Got a better design for a legal system?

Would your proposed design for a legal system work without human involvement?

With Respect and Happy New Year,

Snoop
 

chieftain

Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,658
Likes
3,785
Would your proposed design for a legal system work without human involvement?
As it stands, the legal system enables and rewards morally bankrupt people, by virtue of the complexity and ambiguity of pretty much every single piece of legislation ever enacted in pretty much any country. The complexity means most are unable to understand the law and the ambiguity means those that do are able to sow seeds of doubt by way of interpretation. So to answer your question, a legal system that is so simple and straightforward that obviates the need for any form of lawyer would be a start. No lawyers means no incentive or other attraction for scumbags to infest the system.

Removing the law from most aspects of life would go even further, for most laws right now are a hindrance to pretty much any activity that is currently regulated.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
16,789
Likes
33,938
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
A corporation is a piece of paper.
It's fictional. It's not real.
It's not a man or woman. Its NOT
sovereign!!!

Examples of paper:

UNITED STATES
POLICE DEPARTMENT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CDC
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NEBRASKA

All fictional entities on paper.
Can a paper punch you in the face? Nope.
Can a paper pick up a gun and shoot you? Nope.
Can a paper get up, walk into court and speak words? Nope.

So then why are you afraid of a piece of paper?

Take a match to that shit.

The only thing that is real is a man or a woman beneath a title or costume. Hold them accountable by holding your own court. Remember the costume wearers are not sovereigns either, their titles are fictions. They have contracted to work for the multitude, whom are in the aggragate, the only true sovereigns in American constitutional law!

Never fight with a piece of paper. That's just plain stupid.
I wipe my ass with paper.
Some people roll sticky stuff into paper.
Some people wrap presents with paper.

But who is scared enough to fight with paper or be threatened by nonliving pieces of paper that claim sovereignty over living natural persons???
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
2,944
Likes
4,475
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
A corporation is a piece of paper.
It's fictional. It's not real.
It's not a man or woman. Its NOT
sovereign!!!
No one is saying it is.

The legal status of a corporation is that of a "fictitious person."

It is a single entity on tax accounts. Of course it's not taxed as a person - it's taxed at corporate rates.

It has a single identity in legal actions.

But it does not vote.

On the other hand...abolishing corporate status, guarantees American industrial concerns disappear. Because of legal liabilities of actual individuals involved with those businesses.

Example: Pinto gas tanks, or, now, Tesla fires. Should a guy whose job was to put gas tanks in cars, be prosecuted because a Pinto caught fire?

Should Henry Ford II? Henry II no more designed that Pinto than I did. Should Elon Musk be arrested for all the Tesla fires?

Should individual directors, who don't see each product's engineering data, who wouldn't be able to understand it if he did...should they be held liable?

Want to see corporations follow manufacturing jobs overseas? Abolish corporate status, and watch it happen, and almost immediately.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
A corporation is a piece of paper.
It's fictional. It's not real.
It's not a man or woman. Its NOT
sovereign!!!

Examples of paper:

UNITED STATES
POLICE DEPARTMENT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CDC
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NEBRASKA

All fictional entities on paper.
Can a paper punch you in the face? Nope.
Can a paper pick up a gun and shoot you? Nope.
Can a paper get up, walk into court and speak words? Nope.

So then why are you afraid of a piece of paper?

Take a match to that shit.

The only thing that is real is a man or a woman beneath a title or costume. Hold them accountable by holding your own court. Remember the costume wearers are not sovereigns either, their titles are fictions. They have contracted to work for the multitude, whom are in the aggragate, the only true sovereigns in American constitutional law!

Never fight with a piece of paper. That's just plain stupid.
I wipe my ass with paper.
Some people roll sticky stuff into paper.
Some people wrap presents with paper.

But who is scared enough to fight with paper or be threatened by nonliving pieces of paper that claim sovereignty over living natural persons???
Hello BarnacleBob,

Do I understand correctly that you contend the following entities are "corporations"

UNITED STATES
POLICE DEPARTMENT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CDC
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NEBRASKA

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
As it stands, the legal system enables and rewards morally bankrupt people, by virtue of the complexity and ambiguity of pretty much every single piece of legislation ever enacted in pretty much any country. The complexity means most are unable to understand the law and the ambiguity means those that do are able to sow seeds of doubt by way of interpretation. So to answer your question, a legal system that is so simple and straightforward that obviates the need for any form of lawyer would be a start. No lawyers means no incentive or other attraction for scumbags to infest the system.

Removing the law from most aspects of life would go even further, for most laws right now are a hindrance to pretty much any activity that is currently regulated.
Hello chieftain,

YOUR COMMENT: As it stands, the legal system enables and rewards morally bankrupt people,

MY RESPONSE: Are all three of the Trump-appointed Justices to the Supreme Court morally bankrupt? Are the hundreds of Trump-appointed judges to all the lower federal courts morally bankrupt? If Trump were to win a lawsuit overturning the election results, would he be morally bankrupt? If Trump were to win a lawsuit overturning the election results, would all of his supporters (including you) be morally bankrupt?

YOUR COMMENT: by virtue of the complexity and ambiguity of pretty much every single piece of legislation ever enacted in pretty much any country.

MY RESPONSE: Yes. Some legislation is complex and ambiguous. This is because there are people who attempt to pick legislation apart and interpret it in bad faith. For example, if the legislation simply said, "Every person who drives a motor vehicle must have a driver's license," there are those who would say, "I am not a 'person'. I am a (fill-in the blank with something else here) ___________." There are also those who would say, "I do not 'drive'. I merely 'travel' 'from point A to point B.'" There are also those who would say, "I do not drive a 'motor vehicle', I travel in a 'conveyance', " and so on. So, legislators are forced to provide a complex series of definitions of words which apply solely to that particular legislation and not to other legislation and they are forced to craft each sentence so that it can only by understood one way.

Likewise, if the legislation simply said, "Every individual who lives in the United States and who receives income in the United States must pay income tax on that income," there are those who would say, "I am not an 'individual'. I am an 'American National' and 'American Nationals' are not 'individuals', So, I do not have to pay income taxes." (Others would substitute the term, "state citizen" for the term, "American National".). There are also those who would say, "I do not live in the United States, because the United States consists solely of the territory inside the borders of the District of Columbia and I do not live inside the borders of the District of Columbia. So, I do not live in the United States and therefore do not have to pay income taxes." There are also those who would say, "I do not receive 'income'. I receive 'wages' in exchange for my labor of the same value as my wages, which is an even trade resulting in no gain. Therefore, I do not receive income and therefore do not have to pay income taxes." So, legislators are forced to provide a complex series of definitions of words which apply solely to that particular legislation and not to other legislation and they are forced to craft each sentence so that it can only by understood one way.

Thus, legislators are forced to write legislation in such a way that it can only be interpreted one way, so as to prevent all bullshit interpretations by those construing the legislation in bad faith. The irony is that this "defensive draftsmanship" makes legislation complex for those of us who are reading the legislation in good faith.

The good news is that virtually all legislation has been interpreted for us by the courts. So, those of us who read case law find out exactly what confusing legislation really means in real life situations (usually when some buffoon interprets the legislation in bad faith, so as to attempt to avoid being bound by it).

I too prefer common law (case law) over legislation. I am the first to admit that legislation which reverses or modifies the common law (case law) is usually a change for the worse. This is because appellate judges (who write case law) are required to explain how they reached their result for all the world to see. So, a nonsense ruling can be easily-spotted by lawyers (and other judges) everywhere and reversed on appeal.

On the other hand, legislators are not obligated to document in writing their rationale or purpose for passing a statute. What's worse, legislators of every stripe are backed by donors who expect to gain an advantage in specific proposed legislation if their candidate wins the election. These campaign contributions amount to bribery. Fortunately, campaign money is much less corrupting in the judicial branch than it is in the legislative and executive branches of government.

YOUR COMMENT: The complexity means most are unable to understand the law and the ambiguity means those that do are able to sow seeds of doubt by way of interpretation.

MY RESPONSE: The complexity of legislation today is largely in response to people who interpret legislation in bad faith (as explained above). But remember, case law explains the meaning of virtually every single act of legislation, even the most complex, vague and ambiguous. Why do you think that case law is always the first choice for lawyers and judges, even in areas of the law also governed by legislation? The answer is "clarity in real life situations" (usually when some buffoon is interpreting the legislation in bad faith in an attempt to avoid being bound by it).

YOUR COMMENT: So to answer your question, a legal system that is so simple and straightforward that obviates the need for any form of lawyer would be a start.

MY RESPONSE: This would be ideal. I have always said the same thing. But, I submit to you that most of the confusion about the law is the direct result of non-lawyers teaching the public bad faith interpretations of the law in order to incite hatred of our elected government in general and hatred of our legal institutions in particular. I submit to you that if you had heard the truth about the law first (instead of hearing the lies about the law first), you would have virtually no confusion about the law today. I realize that you have been taught to hate lawyers. But, it is not lawyers who have repeatedly lied to you about the law, incited your hatred of others and caused you so much confusion. It is the charlatans, criminals and haters who have repeatedly lied to you about the law. Who should you be REALLY angry with? The lawyers who have always tell you the truth about the law? Or, the charlatans, criminals and haters who have always lied to you about the law? I submit to your that hatred of lawyers is misdirected. You are killing the wrong snake.

YOUR COMMENT: No lawyers means no incentive or other attraction for scumbags to infest the system.

MY RESPONSE: If it has not occurred to you yet, every single court case has TWO opposing sides. Therefore, every single court case has TWO opposing lawyers (or TWO opposing sets of lawyers). Were all of the lawyers who represented Trump in filing suit to reverse the election results "scumbags"? Did all of the lawyers who represented Trump in filing suit to reverse the election results have "incentive or other attraction... to infest the system"? Or, were all of the lawyers who represented Trump in filing suit to reverse the election results seeking justice?

YOUR COMMENT: Removing the law from most aspects of life would go even further, for most laws right now are a hindrance to pretty much any activity that is currently regulated.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. But, the question is NOT whether regulations are burdensome. They are burdensome. The REAL question is whether the absence of regulation IS EVEN MORE burdensome than the regulations are. Where you stand on the law depends on where you sit. Think about it.

Example: If you were rendered a quadriplegic in an auto accident caused by a negligent motorist who had no insurance and as a result of the accident, you lost your ability to work, lost your home, lost your life savings and you had been sued for a million dollars in unpaid hospital bills (which are NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy), you would DEMAND legislation which required every motor vehicle owner to carry bodily injury liability insurance on his/her motor vehicle for precisely such an occurrence .

Likewise, if your wife was killed in an auto accident caused by an intoxicated motorist who still had a driver's license despite having six previous convictions for driving while intoxicated, you would DEMAND legislation which required the revocation of driver's licenses of such persons after their second or third conviction for driving while intoxicated.

If you and your family were travelling in a passenger train and you later found out that some buffoon had unloaded 100 rounds of armor-piercing bullets from his AK-47 into that same passenger train as it passed by, you would DEMAND legislation banning such conduct, even though "there was no victim" on that particular occasion. The likelihood of shooting a passenger during such activity is SO GREAT and the consequences of being shot during such activity is SO GREAT (death) that the rights of the passengers to avoid being shot outweighs the 'rights' of the shooter to be free to shoot where ever he pleases. FACT: The purpose of much regulation is to prevent there from ever being a "victim" in the fist place. That is the reason for driver's license tests, speed limits, stop signs, traffic control lights and so on. It is about the prevention of harm.

If you had a six year old daughter in elementary school and you found out that young men drag race their vintage muscle cars at speeds of over 120 MPH on the street in front of her school on the afternoon of the day before, you would DEMAND legislation imposing fines or other penalties on such conduct, even "if there was no victim" on that particular occasion. The purpose of much regulation is to prevent there from ever being a "victim" in the fist place. That is the reason for driver's licenses, driver's license tests, speed limits, stop signs, traffic control lights and so on. It is about the prevention of harm.

Consider these facts. Your were stopped at a red light and a drunk driver rear-ended you at 75 MPH. The accident broke your back and destroyed your $50,000 Mercedes. The drunk driver then got out of his car and ran away and jumped a wall, never to be found again. That's OK. You just want to get the insurance information on at-fault vehicle to pay for the damages caused by the drunk driver. But, the at-fault vehicle has its VIN number filed off and it has no title registered with the state to help you identify the owner for insurance purposes.. It also has no tag to help you identify the owner for insurance purposes. Under these circumstances, you would DEMAND legislation making it illegal to file off VIN numbers and to require that every vehicle have a title registered with the state and require that every vehicle have a tag to prevent just such an occurrence from occurring again.

Consider these facts. You bought a pristine, vintage Corvette from a seller for $50,000 and you refused to transfer the previous owner's title to yourself, refused to register that transferred title with the state or get a tag for it (because you are a sovereign citizen and those laws do not apply to you). A year later, your Corvette is stolen. Later, while on vacation 1,000 miles away in another state, you happen spot your old Corvette in a barn. You confront the possessor of the Corvette who tells you that he recently bought it from the same seller that you bought it from, but (unlike you) he transferred the previous title to himself, registered it with his state and got a tag for it. So, you go to the police and demand the "return" of "your" Corvette. The police tell you that there is "no record" of you ever owning such a vehicle in any state and you cannot locate the seller from whom you bought the Corvette in order to challenge the ownership claims of the current possessor. Under these circumstances, you would DEMAND legislation requiring that every transfer of title of every vehicle be recorded with the state and that every vehicle owner register the vehicle in his own name and obtain tag for it to prevent just such an occurrences from occurring again.
.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The purpose of most regulation is to prevent there from ever being a victim in the first place. Where you stand on the law depends on where you sit. When you become a victim (or you become a potential victim) of the wrongful act of another, you have an entirely different view of the malevolence of "regulation". The reality is that victims and potential victims DEMAND such legislation, first to prevent there from ever being a "victim" in the first place and second to protect the innocent victim from paying for losses actually caused by the wrongdoer. Which is a greater burden for society? Regulation? Or, the absence of regulation? Society has chosen the latter.

With Great Respect And Wishing You A Happy New Year,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
These very people make up the "system" snoop. To separate them from the processes, legislation and other paperwork is erroneous at best and quite dangerous at worst. The system is corrupt because the participants are corrupt.
Hello Chieftain,

YOUR COMMENT: These very people make up the "system" snoop. To separate them from the processes, legislation and other paperwork is erroneous at best and quite dangerous at worst. The system is corrupt because the participants are corrupt

MY RESPONSE: Did you know that the defendant him/her self is part of the system that you criticize? Did you know that the defendant's attorney is part of the system that you criticize? Did you know that the jury (which is co-picked by the defendant him/her self from among "We the People") is part of the system that you criticize? Did you know that "We the People" who ELECT the judge (who is only a referee between the parties) is part of the system that you criticize? Did you know that "We the People" who ELECT the prosecutor are part of the system that you criticize? Did you know that "We the People" who ELECT the public defender in some states is part of the system that you criticize. Did you know that "We the People" who ELECT the lawmakers who wrote the criminal statutes are part of the system that you criticize? Did you know that "We the People" who ELECTED the Governor, the County Sheriff and the City Police Chief who made the arrest in the case are part of the system that you criticize?

The reality is that WE ARE ALL PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT YOU CRITICIZE! The difference between you and I is that I do not mindlessly oppose the will of "We the People" or the legal system in which "We the People" pick (by ELECTION or otherwise) every single person who plays a role in it.

Our forefathers designed our legal system to ensure that "We the People" pick (by ELECTION or otherwise) every single person who plays a role in our own legal system. If "We the People" are invalid to ELECT our own lawmakers, our own law enforcement agency heads, our own judges, our own prosecutors, our own public defenders and if "We the People", as defendants, are invalid to co-pick our own juries and to be picked to sit as jurors in the trials of others, THEN WHO IN HELL SHOULD HAVE THOSE POWERS? A dictator? A warlord? A monarch? A King? A Queen? A Duke? A Duchess? Have you thought this thing all the way through to the other side?

What is it about "We the People" that you hate so much? What is it about our ELECTIONS that you hate so much? What is it about our constitution that you hate so much? What is it about our republic that you hate so much? Where does all this blind hatred come from? I'll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the charlatans, criminals and haters who have done nothing but lie to you about the law and the legal system all of your life. You are not a slave to the legal system. You are a slave to the manipulation and calculated fraud of these charlatans, criminals and haters who have poisoned your mind.

So, my question to you is this. If a legal system controlled entirely by "We the People" is invalid, THEN EXACTLY WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO REPLACE IT?

With Great Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
I would replace the jury trial with the trial by jury system of the common law where the jury judges both the law and the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.

Watch all the victimless crimes go the way they should go into the dumpster.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
16,789
Likes
33,938
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Hello BarnacleBob,

Do I understand correctly that you contend the following entities are "corporations"

UNITED STATES
POLICE DEPARTMENT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CDC
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NEBRASKA

Best Regards,

Snoop
Indeed, because they are... !!!
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,586
Likes
12,668
Did you know that the defendant's attorney is part of the system that you criticize?
Did you know that lawyers are two faced snakes that unnecessarily complicate everything to leech off others?
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
I would replace the jury trial with the trial by jury system of the common law where the jury judges both the law and the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.

Watch all the victimless crimes go the way they should go into the dumpster.
YOUR COMMENT: I would replace the jury trial with the trial by jury system of the common law where the jury judges both the law and the guilt or innocence of the parties involved. Watch all the victimless crimes go the way they should go into the dumpster.

MY RESPONSE: If you were white and you were charged with the murder of a black child in an all-black county in Mississippi (with all-black juries), would you support the form of jury nullification whereby the jury could disregard undeniable evidence THAT YOU WERE FACTUALLY INNOCENT and out of state at the time, but nevertheless FOUND YOU GUILTY ANYWAY, so that you, as a white man, would be put to death by an all-black jury to pay for "400 years a racial injustice" in Mississippi? Should the black prosecutor have the right to tell the all-black jury that they have the legal ability to ignore all the evidence, ignore all the law and simply punish you as a white man as they see fit without any legal limitation whatsoever?

If you were charged in count 1 with first degree murder (with malice aforethought) and in count 2 with manslaughter (without malice aforethought) and the conservative jury regarded the punishment for manslaughter as FAR TOO LENIENT, would you support the form of nullification whereby the jury fraudulently found you GUILTY of first degree murder, so as to INCREASE your punishment for the crime THAT YOU ACTUALLY COMMITTED (manslaughter) to a punishment which they regarded as more appropriate for that particular crime? Should the prosecutor have the right to tell the jury that they have the legal ability to ignore all the evidence, ignore all the law and simply punish you as they see fit without any legal limitation whatsoever?

If your wife and daughter were kidnapped, raped and murdered by the defendant during the making of a snuff film and the jury, all of whom were liberals opposed the death penalty, watched that snuff film and saw the defendant commit the crimes, would you support the form of jury nullification whereby the jury fraudulently found the defendant INNOCENT, so that the defendant would avoid both the death penalty and all other lesser punishment (as an "INNOCENT" man)? Should the defense attorney have the right to tell the liberal jury (who oppose the death penalty) that they have the legal ability to ignore all the evidence, ignore all the law and find the defendant "INNOCENT" and thereby prevent the imposition of the death penalty? Did you know that it would only take ONE LIBERAL JUROR to pull off such a nullification, even if all of the remaining jurors were conservative and supported the death penalty? Should ONE LIBERAL JUROR have have the power to inflict such an injustice on you while you are mourning the loss of your dead wife and your dead daughter by such a method?

Where you stand on the law depends on where you sit. In our republic, "We the People" have opted to stand with the innocent, not with the guilty. Further, unlike the days in ancient England when many laws (often promulgated by monarchy/nobility, rather than by elected representatives) trampled on the rights and freedoms of individuals, we now have Constitutional protections from such laws. So, jury nullification today would serve very little purpose.

YOUR COMMENT: Watch all the victimless crimes go the way they should go into the dumpster.

MY RESPONSE: Should a buffoon who routinely shoots 100 rounds of armor-piercing bullets from his AK-47 into passing passenger trains as they pass by be able to defend his conduct on the grounds that he hasn't actually killed anyone yet? After all, these were all "victimless crimes".

Should drivers of vintage muscle cars who routinely drag race on the street in front of an elementary school at 3:00 PM in the afternoon be able to defend themselves on the grounds that they haven't actually killed any school children yet? After all, these were all "victimless traffic offenses".

Should a suicidal motorist who intentionally runs every stop sign and red light in the county be able to defend himself on the grounds that he hasn't actually killed anyone yet? After all, these were "victimless traffic offenses".

Should a habitual drunk with 8 prior convictions for Driving While Intoxicated (6 of which involved death or catastrophic injury and property destruction) be able to defend himself in his 9th trial for Driving While Intoxicated on the grounds that he didn't actually injure or kill anyone or destroy any property on that particular occasion? After all, this was a "victimless crime".

Much of the reasoning behind regulation IS TO PREVENT THERE FROM EVER BEING A VICTIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Criminal law and traffic law is NOT just about punishment.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

chieftain

Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,658
Likes
3,785
The reality is that WE ARE ALL PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT YOU CRITICIZE! The difference between you and I is that I do not mindlessly oppose the will of "We the People" or the legal system in which "We the People" pick (by ELECTION or otherwise) every single person who plays a role in it.
You couldn't be more wrong snoop. The defendants and plaintiffs are NOT a part of the system, they are coerced (sometimes under duress) into engaging with the legal system. Thousands of people have been arrested with no evidence, no cause and no case in law with many being convicted of crimes they never committed. And you won't find records for such cases because most would be sealed for varying reasons as concocted by the legal system.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
You couldn't be more wrong snoop. The defendants and plaintiffs are NOT a part of the system, they are coerced (sometimes under duress) into engaging with the legal system. Thousands of people have been arrested with no evidence, no cause and no case in law with many being convicted of crimes they never committed. And you won't find records for such cases because most would be sealed for varying reasons as concocted by the legal system.
YOUR COMMENT: You couldn't be more wrong snoop. The defendants and plaintiffs are NOT a part of the system,

MY RESPONSE: What are plaintiffs and defendants then, "bystanders" in the legal system? No, the reality is that plaintiffs and defendants are indeed a very large part of the legal system. In both civil and criminal cases, they alone raise all of the claims and defenses in the case. In both civil and criminal cases, they alone pick their own juries in their case. In both civil and criminal cases, they alone call all of the witnesses who will testify in the case. In both civil and criminal cases, they alone interrogate the witnesses under oath in the presence of the jury. In both civil and criminal cases, they alone proffer and seek to admit into evidence all of the physical evidence used in the case (weapons, photos, recordings, documents, records and other things). In both civil and criminal cases, they alone raise all legal objections to improper questions, statements or to conduct of the opposing party. In both civil and criminal cases, they alone make all of the opening statements and make all of the closing arguments to the jury in the case.

The plaintiff in a civil case always has the choice of whether to file suit. The plaintiff in a criminal case always has the choice of whether to file charges. The defendant in civil cases always has the choice of defending the Plaintiff's allegations or settling the case out of court. Likewise, the defendant in criminal cases always has the choice of defending the charges or entering into a plea deal. (Many plea deals involve the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser offense and agreeing to light sentence in exchange for the dropping of all of the other charges.).

In both civil and criminal cases, it is the judge and jury (not the plaintiff and defendant) who are largely bystanders for most of a trial. In both civil and criminal cases, the judge is merely a referee until the jury returns the verdict and the jury merely watches and listens to the plaintiff and defendant until the close of all the evidence and the end of both closing arguments.

YOUR COMMENT: They [plaintiffs and defendants] are coerced (sometimes under duress) into engaging with the legal system.

MY RESPONSE: I fail to see how a plaintiff can be "coerced" into filing suit in civil cases or coerced into filing charges in criminal cases. The plaintiff in a civil case always has the choice of whether to file suit. The plaintiff in a criminal case always has the choice of whether to file charges. The defendant in civil cases always has the choice of defending the Plaintiff's allegations or settling the case out of court. Likewise, the defendant in criminal cases always has the choice of defending the charges or entering into a plea deal. (Many plea deals involve the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser offense and agreeing to light sentence in exchange for the dropping of all of the other charges.).

Liable defendants in civil cases can chose to avoid court by settling with the plaintiff out of court. Guilty defendants in criminal cases can chose to avoid court by entering into a plea deal. (Many plea deals involve the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser offense and agreeing to light sentence in exchange for the dropping of all of the other charges.). Innocent defendants in civil cases can chose to fight the plaintiff's lawsuit in civil court. Likewise, innocent defendants in criminal cases can chose to fight the charges in court. How does this amount to coercion or duress?

YOUR COMMENT: Thousands of people have been arrested with no evidence, no cause and no case in law with many being convicted of crimes they never committed.

MY RESPONSE: It is true that many people have been arrested, charged and convicted for crimes they never committed. But, it is not true that these people were arrested, charged and convicted with no evidence, no cause and no case in law. In every such case of wrongful conviction, there was evidence that the defendant committed a specific crime. But, that evidence later proved to be wrong, as in the case of mistaken identity (where a defendant looked like the real perpetrator) or where the a witness or an alleged victim framed an innocent person to protect the real perpetrator (often themselves). This is why the penalties for perjury are so severe (to prevent false testimony). A conviction cannot occur without evidence of a crime.

YOUR COMMENT: And you won't find records for such cases because most would be sealed for varying reasons as concocted by the legal system.

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is simply not true. The law in every state and federal court is that ALL CASE FILES are always open to the public for inspection and for copying, except in five (5) types of cases, all of which are intended to protect the privacy rights of the parties themselves. First, adoption files are sealed to protect the privacy rights of the birth parent(s), the adopting parents and the person adopted. If these files were not sealed, adoptions would come to a screeching halt. Second, the files of juvenile offenders are sealed so that a child's life is not destroyed by a record of a juvenile offense which occurred before the child even reaches adulthood. Third, files which reveal the identity of the victim of sexual assault are sealed to protect the privacy rights of the victim. If such files were not sealed, then fewer victims (if any) would ever report sexual assault. Fourth, the files of incompetency proceedings (typically seniors with dementia or Alzheimer's disease) are sealed to protect the privacy and dignity of the person alleged to be (or who is judicially determined to be) legally incompetent (so that another person might handle their affairs) . Fifth, files which contain the psychiatric records of a party are sealed unless they are used as a defense in the case. In most of these cases, ONLY that portion of the file containing the psychiatric records is sealed, leaving the rest of the file open to the public for inspection or for copying. But, where those psychiatric records are repeatedly referred to or repeatedly quoted elsewhere throughout the file, the entire file may be sealed. Note that is the only type of criminal file that can ever be sealed. Finally, in some jurisdictions, a party may also move the court to seal a file containing sensitive medical records (such as an HIV infection or an HIV transmission to another). In all other types of cases, court files are always open to the public for inspection or for copying WITHOUT SEALING. The conspiracy that you describe about the sealing of incriminating court files does not exist. It never has.

With Great Respect,

Snoop
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
YOUR COMMENT: I would replace the jury trial with the trial by jury system of the common law where the jury judges both the law and the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.

MY RESPONSE: If you were white and you were charged with the murder of a black child in an all-black county in Mississippi (with all-black juries), would you support the form of jury nullification whereby the jury could disregard undeniable evidence THAT YOU WERE FACTUALLY INNOCENT and out of state at the time, but nevertheless FOUND YOU GUILTY ANYWAY, so that you, as a white man, would be put to death by an all-black jury to pay for "400 years a racial injustice" in Mississippi? Should the black prosecutor have the right to tell the all-black jury that they have the legal ability to ignore all the evidence, ignore all the law and simply punish you as a white man as they see fit without any legal limitation whatsoever?

If you were charged in count 1 with first degree murder (with malice aforethought) and in count 2 with manslaughter (without malice aforethought) and the conservative jury regarded the punishment for manslaughter as FAR TOO LENIENT, would you support the form of nullification whereby the jury fraudulently found you GUILTY of first degree murder, so as to INCREASE your punishment for the crime THAT YOU ACTUALLY COMMITTED (manslaughter) to a punishment which they regarded as more appropriate for that particular crime? Should the prosecutor have the right to tell the jury that they have the legal ability to ignore all the evidence, ignore all the law and simply punish you as they see fit without any legal limitation whatsoever?

If your wife and daughter were kidnapped, raped and murdered by the defendant during the making of a snuff film and the jury, all of whom were liberals opposed the death penalty, watched that snuff film and saw the defendant commit the crimes, would you support the form of jury nullification whereby the jury fraudulently found the defendant INNOCENT, so that the defendant would avoid both the death penalty and all other lesser punishment (as an "INNOCENT" man)? Should the defense attorney have the right to tell the liberal jury (who oppose the death penalty) that they have the legal ability to ignore all the evidence, ignore all the law and find the defendant "INNOCENT" and thereby prevent the imposition of the death penalty? Did you know that it would only take ONE LIBERAL JUROR to pull off such a nullification, even if all of the remaining jurors were conservative and supported the death penalty? Should ONE LIBERAL JUROR have have the power to inflict such as injustice on you while you are mourning the loss of your dead wife and your dead daughter by such a method?

Where you stand on the law depends on where you sit. In our republic, "We the People" have opted to stand with the innocent, not with the guilty. Further, unlike the days in ancient England when many laws (often promulgated by monarchy/nobility, rather than by elected representatives) trampled on the rights and freedoms of individuals, we now have Constitutional protections from such laws. So, jury nullification today would serve very little purpose.

YOUR COMMENT: Watch all the victimless crimes go the way they should go into the dumpster.

MY RESPONSE: Should a buffoon who routinely shoots 100 rounds of armor-piercing bullets from his AK-47 into passing passenger trains be able to defend his conduct on the grounds that he hasn't actually killed anyone yet? After all, these were all "victimless crimes".

Should drivers of vintage muscle cars who routinely drag race on the street in front of an elementary school at 3:00 in the afternoon be able to defend themselves on the grounds that they haven't actually killed any school children yet? After all, these were all "victimless traffic offenses".

Should a suicidal motorist who intentionally runs every stop sign and red light in the county be able to defend himself on the grounds that he hasn't actually killed anyone yet? After all, these were "victimless traffic offenses".

Should a habitual drunk with 8 prior convictions for Driving While Intoxicated (6 of which involved death or catastrophic injury and property destruction) be able to defend himself in his 9th trial for Driving While Intoxicated on the grounds that he didn't actually injure or kill anyone or destroy any property on that particular occasion? After all, this was a "victimless crime".

Much of the reasoning behind regulation IS TO PREVENT THERE FROM EVER BEING A VICTIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Criminal law and traffic law is NOT just about punishment.

With Respect,

Snoop
Cherry picking is such fun in legal land.

Meanwhile people are routinely locked up for "crimes" against the state. That are not really crimes.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
Much of what the speaker says is true.

But, his claims that the tenth amendment somehow barred the Supreme Court of the United States from deciding the question of same sex marriage is false. The tenth amendment ONLY bars the federal government from regulating those legal subjects WHICH THE STATES DID NOT DELEGATE TO IT TO REGULATE in the Untied States Constitution. And, the powers at issue in this particular case WERE expressly delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.[2][3

While I do not like the outcome of the case, I will have to admit that the Supreme Court of the United States had the Constitutional jurisdiction and the Constitutional right to make the decision. I must also must admit that the tenth amendment is not a bar to the Supreme Court deciding the case.

Another falsity of the speaker throughout the video is his implicit claim that only the laws and decisions of the federal government violate the rights of the individual. But, this is not so. More often than not, IT IS THE LAWS AND DECISIONS OF THE STATES WHICH VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, not the other way around. The states are much, much more likely to violate individual rights than the federal government is. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States spends much of its time striking down state statutes and decisions which violate an individual's rights which are protected under the United States Constitution. This would not be the case if the federal government was the sole violator of individual rights.

One glaring omission in this video is the absence of any mention of the vote of "We the People"as means to bring about the desired change. Civil disobedience alone will not change a single law. Acting up alone will not change a single law. The one and only way to change the law is to remove from office the lawmakers who made it or to threaten to remove from office the the lawmakers who made it in the next election. THAT ONLY OCCURS WITH VOTES!

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
Cherry picking is such fun in legal land.

Meanwhile people are routinely locked up for "crimes" against the state. That are not really crimes.
YOUR COMMENT: Meanwhile people are routinely locked up for "crimes" against the state. That are not really crimes.

MY RESPONSE: What makes crimes against the state "not really crimes"and what case says this?
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
YOUR COMMENT: Meanwhile people are routinely locked up for "crimes" against the state. That are not really crimes.

MY RESPONSE: What makes crimes against the state "not really crimes"and what case says this?
Smoking Marijuana is not a crime except in legal land. There is no injured party, yet there are people doing time for that offense.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,648
Likes
19,608
Damn this really went off topic with the tax stuff. I enjoy reading through it all. Well done by all participants.
A few things I would like to say is that Quatloos is known to be a government funded site. I would expect nothing less than government ideas and perspectives to be allowed there. I stopped taking them seriously long ago. They had claimed that the IRS was going after Tommy Cryer for past taxes even though he kicked their asses in court. It was all not true and merely posted as disinformation. I know this because I spoke with Tommy several times before his passing and he assured me there was no attempt made to collect any back taxes.

Snoop I know you have lots of stuff going on here and probably don't remember our taxation conversation. I hate to bring it up here again but will do so since this is the active post for now.

So this is at the point where I had to pause. Just to many links thrown at me from various places and really what it comes down to is this.
We both agree that the SC is the law of the land. However in your replies to me you listed a bunch of lower court decisions that are in conflict with the SC. It's at that point that it becomes a tedious labor to refute a bunch of lower court cases based on the SC decisions.
I know at some point I am going to have to address all of that with you. However, at the end of the day will I ever get you to change your mind? Probably not.
One other point along those lines is that Becraft is the one who defended Cryer IIRC. Both are very good attorneys and certainly not crackpots out to deceive anyone. I've also spoken with other attorneys who work at very large firms and are also very good at what they do. They know the truth and agree with Cryer and Becraft and also have read Daves book and can find nothing wrong with it. They also know the government will go after their license to practice law if they present arguments which the government says are frivolous. Thats the Governments favorite position on the matter. Everything is frivolous concerning any tax case.

Here's a quick video Dave put out last year mostly concerning the w-9 and US person. I know I have posted a lot of his other stuff before. I do have to ask you. Have you ever read his book? If not I'd like to buy you a copy of it. I'd would like to see your critique of it and we can start a new post here on just that book. I'll talk with dave and get him over here to defend it and you guys can have at it. :). I actually do not own his book and before his book came out was following Tommy Cryer. I learned a lot from him and his writings. I spend a couple thousand hours reading court cases and confirming everything he said was true and written in SC decisions. I'll also post a link to Tommys memorandum that he used in his court case

https://www.truth-attack.com/jml/images/stories/PDF/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
Smoking Marijuana is not a crime except in legal land. There is no injured party, yet there are people doing time for that offense.
YOUR COMMENT: Smoking Marijuana is not a crime except in legal land. There is no injured party, yet there are people doing time for that offense.

MY RESPONSE: Smoking marijuana is a crime in many red states because their ELECTED lawmakers made it a crime there. That doesn't mean that I like the law. I do not. But, smoking weed is still a crime in many states, but not in others. So, if you would like to smoke weed, then go to a blue state out west and light up.

And, did you know that CRIMINAL law, in general, does not require there to be a "VICTIM" for there to be a CRIME. The only time that a VICTIM is required in CRIMINAL law is when the nature of the specific CRIME in question is such that it can ONLY occur with a VICTIM (like murder, rape or battery)? This is because a primary purpose of CRIMINAL law and TRAFFIC law is to prevent there from ever being a VICTIM in the first place (as repeated demonstrated above).

Did you know that the ONE AND ONLY area of the law which actually does require there to be a VICTIM for there to be a valid claim is CIVIL LAW, such as when a private person sues a private person, a corporation or a governmental agency. What's more, in CIVIL LAW if the plaintiff is an adult and otherwise competent, THE PLAINTIFF MUST ACTUALLY BE THE VICTIM IN THE CASE.

Snoop