• "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"

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,480
Likes
4,272
About voting: Seems we have a difference of opinion here.
Voting is nothing, counting the votes is everything. Quote from your favorite dictator here.

The main reason smoking marijuana is a crime is because it is such a good money maker for the legal system and their prime beneficiaries the crooks who bring it in and buy whoever they need to. Only little people suffer, while the law laughs all the way to the bank.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
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
Hello Cigarlover, my old friend,

YOUR COMMENT: Damn this really went off topic with the tax stuff.

MY RESPONSE: Yep. Big Time!

YOUR COMMENT: I enjoy reading through it all. Well done by all participants.

MY RESPONSE: Me too.

YOUR COMMENT: A few things I would like to say is that Quatloos is known to be a government funded site.

MY RESPONSE: What proof do have of this allegation? How is this claim "known"?

YOUR COMMENT: 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.

MY RESPONSE: If you would get your information from the law itself rather than from tax protesters, you would know that THIS "ASS-KICKING" NEVER OCCURRED.

YOUR COMMENT: It was all not true and merely posted as disinformation.

MY RESPONSE: You may have mistakenly regarded it as disinformation, but it was not. THIS IS A VERIFIABLE FACT! Not only did the IRS go after Cryer for back taxes, but CRYER WAS FORCED TO PAY THEM TO THE IRS!

YOUR COMMENT: 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.

MY RESPONSE: Then, he lied to you. Tommy Cryer was mentally ill during the last decade or so of his life. He lost every case in which he was involved AND HAD TO PAY HIS BACK INCOME TAXES TO THE IRS. We have been over this ground before. Would you like to re-read the case that I provided to you on that subject? Was that on the missing post(s) which is/are no longer on this thread?

YOUR COMMENT: Snoop, I know that 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.

MY RESPONSE: That's OK. This thread is already a mess in terms of unrelated topics.

YOUR COMMENT: 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.

MY RESPONSE: This is absolutely, positively not so. Not a single lower court decision on the subject of income taxes is in conflict with a single Supreme Court case on the same subject. Not one. The Supreme Court will not allow it.

YOUR COMMENT: It's at that point that it becomes a tedious labor to refute a bunch of lower court cases based on the SC decisions.

MY RESPONSE: Fine then. Just show me ONE, SINGLE lower federal court income tax case which is in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the same legal subject. You do not need to show me all of them. One will do.

YOUR COMMENT: 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.

MY RESPONSE: If you show me just ONE, SINGLE lower federal court income tax case that actually conflicts with a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the same legal subject and I will admit it to you, in writing, right here.

YOU COMMENT: One other point along those lines is that Becraft is the one who defended Cryer IIRC.

MY RESPONSE: Cryer was never even in the same league as Becraft. For one thing, Becraft has never been mentally ill as Cryer was for the last decade or so before his death and Becraft never had Cryer's legal, personal and financial problems. The fact that Becraft represented Cryer DOES NOT MEAN THAT BECRAFT ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT CRYER'S TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS WERE VALID. The fact is that we lawyers represent people who are wrong and nutty all the time. Even the guilty and mentally-ill deserve the best legal representation they can get.

YOUR COMMENT: Both are very good attorneys and certainly not crackpots out to deceive anyone.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Cryer became a total crack pot. Indeed, his legal problems were the direct result of his mental problems.

YOUR COMMENT: 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.

MY RESPONSE: I cannot imagine Becraft buying into any of Cryer's pathetic, infantile, frivolous tax protester arguments, much less other attorneys who work at very large firms who are good at what they do. And, what the hell is "Dave's Book"?

YOUR COMMENT: They also know the government will go after their license to practice law if they present arguments which the government says are frivolous.

MY RESPONSE: Cigarlover, my dear friend, there is a good reason for this. THE COURT CAN IMPOSE MASSIVE FINES ON PERSONS WHO RAISE ANY OF THE SPECIFICALLY-ENUMERATED TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS LISTED IN THE LINKS IN POST #84, SOME OF WHICH ARE QUOTED IN POSTS #87, #88 AND #89 ABOVE. Attorney's who intentionally raise such frivolous tax protester arguments (like any of those enumerated in these posts above) can be sanctioned (penalized) by the courts (and likely by the state bars) for doing so. Yes, I believe that raising any of these specifically forbidden tax protester arguments can result in an attorney losing their license.

Even outside the area of income tax law, a lawyer can be severely sanctioned (penalized) for raising arguments in court which are well-known, proven-losing arguments in that particular type of case. In the federal courts, a lawyer's signature on a legal document constitutes the attorney's oath to the court that the statements made in the document are factually true and that the arguments are made in good faith. If such a document contains a well-known, proven-losing legal argument, the court can severely sanction (punish) the lawyer under Rule 11.

The reason that these tax protester arguments are forbidden is that not that they are so good, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BAD! They are forbidden because they are squarely contrary to the law, because they have a 100% failure rate, because they will never succeed in any case at any time, because they waste the court's time and because they are often raised solely to harass the courts yet once again.

YOUR COMMENT: That's the Governments favorite position on the matter. Everything is frivolous concerning any tax case.

MY RESPONSE: Not "everything" is frivolous in income tax cases. Only tax protester arguments (like those linked to in Post #84) are "frivolous" in tax protester cases.

YOUR COMMENT: 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?

MY RESPONSE: No. I have not read Dave's "book". As you know, my only source for information about the law is the law itself. I do not need a middleman to tell me what the law is. I can read it perfectly fine by myself.

YOUR COMMENT: 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

MY RESPONSE: There is little point to me reading Dave's "book", much less critiquing it or debating it with him. If Dave is not an experienced lawyer, then we are not equals in the law and will not even be able to effectively communicate about the law with one another. Dave's "book" is likely just another collection of the very tax protester arguments which the courts have repeatedly struck down as frivolous in the cases in the links in Post # 84 above. I will take a look at Cryer's memo. But, I am only interested in the law itself and not tax protester arguments which are non-law.

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

Cigarlover, this is one case which directly rebuts and refutes Dave's claims about a "U.S. Person" beginning at about 7:00 into the video. SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 70% THROUGH HE TEXT HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13283267928197850450&q="U.S.+person"+w-9&hl=en&as_sdt=40003

Crews v. PARLIER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dist. Court, ED California 2013

(BEGIN QUOTE)

For federal tax purposes, you are considered A U.S. PERSON if you are:

• An individual who is A U.S. CITIZEN OR U.S. RESIDENT ALIEN,​
• A partnership, corporation, company, or association created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States,​
• An estate (other than a foreign estate), or​
• A domestic trust (as defined in Regulations section 301.7701-7). The form's definition restates the definition of U.S. person set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30).​

(END QUOTE)

THIS IS WHAT PAGE TWO OF THE W-9 FORM REALLY SAYS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF A U.S. PERSON FOR W-9 PURPOSES:

(BEGIN QUOTE)

Definition of a U.S. person. For federal tax purposes, you are considered a U.S. person if you are:
• AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A U.S. CITIZEN OR U.S. RESIDENT ALIEN;

• A partnership, corporation, company, or association created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States;
• An estate (other than a foreign estate); or
• A domestic trust (as defined in Regulations section 301.7701-7).

(END QUOTE)

The definition of the term "U.S. Person" or the term "United States Person" for IRS purposes in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30) is:

(BEGIN QUOTE)

(30) United States person

The term "United States person" means-

(A) A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

(B) a domestic partnership,

(C) a domestic corporation,

(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and

(E) any trust if-

(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and

(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

(END QUOTE)


Cigarlover, in this case below, the court literally reviews the book entitled, "Crack The Code", chapter and verse. This case is required reading for all tax protesters. SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 45% THROUGH TEXT HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=792785816426749808&q="U.S.+person"++w-9&hl=en&as_sdt=40003

Best Regards, and Happy New Year!

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
About voting: Seems we have a difference of opinion here.
Voting is nothing, counting the votes is everything. Quote from your favorite dictator here.

The main reason smoking marijuana is a crime is because it is such a good money maker for the legal system and their prime beneficiaries the crooks who bring it in and buy whoever they need to. Only little people suffer, while the law laughs all the way to the bank.
YOUR COMMENT: The main reason smoking marijuana is a crime is because it is such a good money maker for the legal system and their prime beneficiaries the crooks who bring it in and buy whoever they need to. Only little people suffer, while the law laughs all the way to the bank.

MY RESPONSE: The reason marijuana is legal in blue states is because it is a much bigger money maker when made legal than when made illegal. The marijuana growers in the blue states out west are the ones who are really laughing all the way to the bank.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,480
Likes
4,272
YOUR COMMENT: The main reason smoking marijuana is a crime is because it is such a good money maker for the legal system and their prime beneficiaries the crooks who bring it in and buy whoever they need to. Only little people suffer, while the law laughs all the way to the bank.

MY RESPONSE: The reason marijuana is legal in blue states is because it is a much bigger money maker when made legal than when made illegal. The marijuana growers in the blue states out west are the ones who are really laughing all the way to the bank.

That is only true if production is tightly controlled, by issuing licenses to the few allowed legal access to the market.

In a free world open market situation prices would plummet through the floor.

Think what is the cost of a bale of hay? Used to be a dollar, probably 5 dollars now. For 50 to 60 lbs of marijuana, what is that a lifetime supply?
The lieyers are still lying and you are one of them.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,566
Likes
19,452
MY RESPONSE: If you would get your information from the law itself rather than from tax protesters, you would know that THIS "ASS-KICKING" NEVER OCCURRED.
As a lawyer you can lookup the case fairly easily and see that your wrong on this. He did win. Jury acquitted him of all charges.

Was he lying to me about having to pay back taxes? Possibly but there is no evidence of this. There are only 2 court cases that I can find. One for willful failure to file where he was acquitted of all charges and another tax court case that never went to court because he died before it could. He passed away 5 years after he won his acquittal. ....He won his case in July of 2007. The last time I spoke with him was probably around 2009 or 2010.. Not sure when the tax court case was filed.

In any event, the ass kicking did occur and as I said, you can find the actual case easier than I can.. At one time I had the actual transcripts of the case as well. I've long since lost it though.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,566
Likes
19,452
Cigarlover, this is one case which directly rebuts and refutes Dave's claims about a "U.S. Person" beginning at about 7:00 into the video. SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 70% THROUGH HE TEXT HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13283267928197850450&q="U.S.+person"+w-9&hl=en&as_sdt=40003
Because the complaint in this case is frivolous, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss it with prejudice.
Thank you for this case. You helped make my argument that the courts just dismiss anything as frivolous nowadays to support what the government wants.
I notice you did not take what Dave said in the video and support it with IRS regs that conflict with his contentions. You have taken the government position that the argument is frivolous.. In fact taking that argument without clarifying what the law actually says makes your frivolous argument , well, frivolous. :dduck:

THIS IS WHAT PAGE TWO OF THE W-9 FORM REALLY SAYS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF A U.S. PERSON FOR W-9 PURPOSES:

(BEGIN QUOTE)

Definition of a U.S. person. For federal tax purposes, you are considered a U.S. person if you are:
• AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A U.S. CITIZEN OR U.S. RESIDENT ALIEN;
• A partnership, corporation, company, or association created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States;
• An estate (other than a foreign estate); or
• A domestic trust (as defined in Regulations section 301.7701-7).
If you go back to the 6:30 point in the video Dave explains what or who a US person is and how that term came to be.

There is little point to me reading Dave's "book", much less critiquing it or debating it with him. If Dave is not an experienced lawyer, then we are not equals in the law and will not even be able to effectively communicate about the law. Dave's "book" is likely just another collection of the very tax protester arguments which the courts have repeatedly struck down as frivolous in the cases in the links in Post # 84 above. I will take a look at Cryer's memo. But, I am only interested in the law itself and not tax protester arguments which are non-law.
I respect your opinion on the matter but also disagree with it. Dave spent 17 years researching this book and as such put much more background info on not just the regulations in the IRS code but how those regs changed over time.

The courts do get this wrong all the time or dismiss this as frivolous. They cop out and refuse to address the law as written in the IRS codes. So if the IRS code says one thing and the courts dismiss this thing as frivolous then you take the side of the courts and say thats what the law says.

Going forward if we are to have a meaningful conversation on the subject I would suggest that we both quote the IRS code and either discuss that portion of the code or cite court cases that refute in detail that portion of the code and not just dismiss them as frivolous.

Thats no to say that there are not frivolous arguments made because there are. One problem with the tax honesty movement is that people like Larkin Rose and Pete hendrickson think they are correct when in fact they are wrong. This muddies the waters for people who do have it correct like Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
As a lawyer you can lookup the case fairly easily and see that your wrong on this. He did win. Jury acquitted him of all charges.

Was he lying to me about having to pay back taxes? Possibly but there is no evidence of this. There are only 2 court cases that I can find. One for willful failure to file where he was acquitted of all charges and another tax court case that never went to court because he died before it could. He passed away 5 years after he won his acquittal. ....He won his case in July of 2007. The last time I spoke with him was probably around 2009 or 2010.. Not sure when the tax court case was filed.

In any event, the ass kicking did occur and as I said, you can find the actual case easier than I can.. At one time I had the actual transcripts of the case as well. I've long since lost it though.
Hello Cigarlover,

YOUR COMMENT: As a lawyer you can lookup the case fairly easily and see that your wrong on this.

MY RESPONSE: I can find APPELLATE level cases in one second. But, TRIAL level cases (where the case is not appealed) are usually not posted online, unless one of the parties posts it online. It took me forever to find the trial level cases on Cryer. I had posted his OTHER cases on the comments which are now missing from this thread.

YOUR COMMENT: He did win. Jury acquitted him of all charges.

MY RESPONSE: Cryer did not go to prison ONLY BECAUSE HE HAD A MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT NO TAXES WERE DUE, BUT HE WAS NEVERTHELESS FORCED TO PAY ALL OF HIS INCOME TAXES ANYWAY!

THAT IS NOT GIVING THE GOVERNMENT AN "ASS KICKING".

ABOUT TOMMY CRYER'S CRIMINAL CASE

THE CASE YOU WERE REFERRING TO IS United States v. Cryer, case no. 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. This case is not reported because it is a trial level case, not an appellate level case.

Regardless, In this case, the United States charged Tommy Cryer with the WILLFUL refusal to pay his income taxes. Under the law, if a taxpayer GENUINELY BELIEVED that no taxes were due, HE CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF THIS PARTICULAR CRIME (BECAUSE THERE WAS NO "WILLFULNESS").

While Cryer was TOTALLY WRONG, the jury found that Cryer GENUINELY BELIEVED that no taxes were due. So, Cryer was ACQUITTED of the CRIME of "WILLFULLY" refusing to pay his income tax,

BUT, CRYER WAS NEVERTHELESS FOUND CIVILLY LIABLE TO PAY ALL OF HIS INCOME TAXES ANYWAY AND HE WAS FORCED TO DO SO! The end result of the case was that Cryer was forced to pay all of his ncome taxes anyway! And, CRYER avoided prison ONLY because of his MISTAKEN BELIEF that no taxes were due. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer

Because Cryer peddled tax protester arguments, his followers mistakenly believed that Cryer won the case above on the merits of his tax protester arguments ("Wages are not income", "I am not among the persons statutorily required to pay income tax", etc..). But, this was not so. Cryer was acquitted in his criminal case SOLELY BECAUSE HE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT TRUE! Thus, Cryer did not win his criminal case because he was so smart. Cryer won his criminal case because he was SO STUPID!

AND THEN, HE WAS FORCED TO PAY ALL OF HIS INCOME TAXES ANYWAY! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer.

THAT IS NOT GIVING THE GOVERNMENT AN "ASS KICKING"! THAT IS PATHETIC!

BELOW IS AN EXPOSE' OF TOMMY CRYER'S MENTAL PROBLEMS
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/tommy-cryer

BELOW A FEDERAL INCOME TAX PROFESSOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM TAX PROTESTERS. See entry dated September, 19, 2012.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm#091912

Every single tax protester argument that Cryer ever raised has been struck down and declared frivolous by the courts (because all tax protester arguments are contrary to the law itself).

YOUR COMMENT: Was he lying to me about having to pay back taxes? Possibly but there is no evidence of this.

MY RESPONSE: Yes there is. It is directly above.

YOUR COMMENT: There are only 2 court cases that I can find. One for willful failure to file where he was acquitted of all charges and another tax court case that never went to court because he died before it could. He passed away 5 years after he won his acquittal. ....He won his case in July of 2007. The last time I spoke with him was probably around 2009 or 2010. Not sure when the tax court case was filed.

MY RESPONSE: I may have to do all that research again. The post in which I listed all of the cases that I found on him is now missing from this thread.

YOUR COMMENT: In any event, the ass kicking did occur.

MY RESPONSE: AVOIDING GOING TO PRISON SOLELY BECAUSE OF A MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT NO TAXES WERE DUE AND BEING FORCED TO PAY ALL OF THOSE INCOME TAXES ANYWAY IS NOT GIVING THE U.S. AN "ASS KICKING"!

YOUR COMMENT: and as I said, you can find the actual case easier than I can.. At one time I had the actual transcripts of the case as well. I've long since lost it though.

MY RESPONSE: The entire file may still be available from the court itself.

All My Very Best, An Happy New Year!

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,480
Likes
4,272
A loss in kangaroo court land.

What a surprise.

What lieyers today call court, is just another farce they have put on the public. Laws are written in code meant to deceive with one apparent meaning in English and an entirely different meaning in the code in which it is presented.
The whole farce of what lieyers call court is a tightly controlled public show meant to keep the former free American's in line with what their masters demand.
Truly free people would never allow these lieyer courts.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
Thank you for this case. You helped make my argument that the courts just dismiss anything as frivolous nowadays to support what the government wants.
I notice you did not take what Dave said in the video and support it with IRS regs that conflict with his contentions. You have taken the government position that the argument is frivolous.. In fact taking that argument without clarifying what the law actually says makes your frivolous argument , well, frivolous. :dduck:


If you go back to the 6:30 point in the video Dave explains what or who a US person is and how that term came to be.



I respect your opinion on the matter but also disagree with it. Dave spent 17 years researching this book and as such put much more background info on not just the regulations in the IRS code but how those regs changed over time.

The courts do get this wrong all the time or dismiss this as frivolous. They cop out and refuse to address the law as written in the IRS codes. So if the IRS code says one thing and the courts dismiss this thing as frivolous then you take the side of the courts and say thats what the law says.

Going forward if we are to have a meaningful conversation on the subject I would suggest that we both quote the IRS code and either discuss that portion of the code or cite court cases that refute in detail that portion of the code and not just dismiss them as frivolous.

Thats no to say that there are not frivolous arguments made because there are. One problem with the tax honesty movement is that people like Larkin Rose and Pete hendrickson think they are correct when in fact they are wrong. This muddies the waters for people who do have it correct like Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer.
Hello Again Cigarlover,

YOUR COMMENT: Thank you for this case.

MY RESPONSE: I do not know which case you are referring to. I gave you more than one case. Are you talking about at the case at the very bottom of my post above wherein the court reviewed the "book" entitled "Crack The Code" and ripped it to shreds?

YOUR COMMENT: You helped make my argument that the courts just dismiss anything as frivolous nowadays to support what the government wants.

MY RESPONSE: Yes. Any argument made to the effect that an individual who resides in the United States is not required to pay income on his/her income will be struck down by the courts as "frivolous" (unless that individual is a foreign diplomat or a family member of a foreign diplomat).

Think about it. Use your common sense. Use your critical thinking skills. The elected lawmakers who wrote the Congressional statutes and the career bureaucrats who wrote the IRS regulations ARE ABSOLUTE CONTROL FREAKS!!! These SOB's never have and never will create an"escape hatch" in the law to let individuals residing in the United States completely off the hook for paying income taxes altogether. So, it is pointless and a complete waste of time for you to pretend that you are not subject to paying income taxes altogether because of some imaginary "escape hatch" somewhere in the Congressional statutes or in the IRS regulations which does not now, and never has existed.

From a legal standpoint, the ONLY logical way to deal with income tax liability is to ACCEPT that you are subject to paying income taxes, BUT THEN LOOK FOR EVERY LEGAL MEANS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THAT INCOME TAX LIABILITY. That means you should look for every applicable exemption, deduction, credit, offset an so forth to REDUCE THE AMOUNT of your income tax liability.

But, simply pretending that you are not subject to paying ANY income tax altogether IS A FOOL'S GAME. Not only will you eventually be forced to pay all of those income taxes anyway, but you will also be forced to pay the IRS penalties and interest on the amount due. Further, if you raise a tax protester argument listed in the posts above you can be fined $25,000 or more for each argument. Finally, if you "evade" paying income taxes, you can be charged with a crime, convicted and sentenced to prison.

YOUR COMMENT: I notice you did not take what Dave said in the video and support it with IRS regs that conflict with his contentions.

MY RESPONSE: Correct. I let the courts interpret, explain and apply the Congressional statutes and the IRS regulations for me AND THEN I USED THE RESULTING LAW ITSELF TO REBUT DAVE'S FALSE CONTENTIONS. This is NOT about what Dave says about the Congressional statutes or the IRS regulations. It is NOT about what I say about the Congressional statutes or the IRS regulations. THIS IS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW ITSELF SAYS ABOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES AND THE IRS REGULATIONS. Anything else is a complete waste of time and completely irrelevant. I have never understood why that reality is so hard for people to grasp. It is all about the LAW ITSELF. Nothing else matters. Videos and the claims of FAKE legal experts ARE NOT THE LAW!

YOUR COMMENT: You have taken the government position that the argument is frivolous..

MY RESPONSE" Not so. I am merely telling you the "position" of the courts on the subject. I am like the mail man. I did not write a single word in the letter dropped in the mail. I merely deliver it to you. I take no "position" one way of the other. The words of the law ARE NOT MY WORDS! It is pointless for anyone to take a position contrary to the law itself. If it conflicts with the law itself, it will never work.

YOUR COMMENT: In fact taking that argument without clarifying what the law actually says makes your frivolous argument , well, frivolous. :dduck:

MY RESPONSE: Sorry, Cigarlover. I do not understand this comment. You sent me a video. I took that to mean that you were already familiar with the content of that video. So, I thought that you already knew that in that video, Dave defined a "U.S. Person" SO NARROWLY that this term would apply to virtually NO ONE and that on that basis, Dave claimed that virtually NO ONE had to fill-out, sign or pay income taxes on connection with W-9 income.

So, just in case you did not know, beginning at 7:00 in that video, Dave repeatedly and emphatically stated (I'm paraphrasing) that the term, "U.S. Person" has ONLY been defined ONE WAY for 60 years and that ONE WAY has always been A PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES WHO IS MERELY ACTING AS AN "AGENT" ON BEHALF OF A FOREIGN PERSON OR ENTITY and that "ONLY" SUCH PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO FILL-OUT, SIGN AND PAY INCOME TAXES IN CONNECTION WITH W-9 INCOME AND THAT NOBODY ELSE WAS REQUIRED TO FILL-OUT, SIGN AND PAY INCOME TAXES IN CONNECTION WITH W-9 INCOME (or something to that very same effect).

So, in order to find out whether Dave's claim was true, I simply keyed the term, "U.S. Person" and "W-9" into the "all federal" case law database on Google Scholar (the way all lawyers and courts would look for the law) and the second case which came up HAD AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF THE TERM "U.S. PERSON" (WHEN COMPARED TO WHAT DAVE CLAIMS IN HIS VIDEO). THAT PARTICULAR CASE DEFINED A "U.S. PERSON" AS "A U.S. CITIZEN OR U.S. RESIDENT ALIEN" (QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE). This definition of "U.S. Person" IN THE CASE LAW AND THE CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE means that Dave's definition of "U.S. Person" IN HIS VIDEO IS FALSE AND DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE LAW ITSELF.

So, contrary to Dave's claims, a "U.S. Person" who is obligated fill-out, sign and pay income tax in connection with W-9 income IS NOT merely a person in the United States who is acting as an "agent" on behalf of a foreign person or entity (as Dave falsely contends). This means that A "U.S. PERSON" WHO IS OBLIGATED TO FILL-OUT, SIGN AND PAY INCOME TAX IN CONNECTION WITH W-9 INCOME IS ACTUALLY "A U.S. CITIZEN OR U.S. RESIDENT ALIEN" (WHICH MEANS EVERY PERSON LIVING IN THE UNITED UNITED STATES AND EVERY U.S. CITIZEN ABROAD), contrary to what Dave contends in the video above.

So, in my recent response to you above, I actually quoted the section of the case that I found WHICH PROVED that Dave's definition of "U.S. Person" WAS COMPLETELY FALSE (WHICH, OF COURSE, MAKES HIS CONCLUSION COMPLETELY FALSE). Because I thought that you were familiar with the content of that video, I thought that you would make that connection (that Dave's definition was WRONG, so his conclusion was also WRONG). But, I may have been incorrect in that assumption (that Dave's definition was WRONG, so his conclusion was also WRONG). For that, I apologize. In the future, I will try to be more clear in my explanations.

Regardless, in my response to that video in my previous post above, I went even further to prove to you that Dave's definition was wrong (so that his conclusion was also wrong). In my response to you above. I also quoted a portion of page 2 of a real W-9 form itself TO SHOW YOU HOW THE W-9 FORM ITSELF DEFINES A "U.S. PERSON" AS "AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A U.S. CITIZEN OR U.S. RESIDENT ALIEN" (WHICH MEANS EVERY PERSON LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES AND EVERY U.S. CITIZEN ABROAD), contrary to what Dave contends. This means that not only does the case law (which actually quoted the statutory definition) prove that Dave's definition was wrong. It also means that the W-9 form ITSELF proves that Dave's definition was wrong.

Finally, in my response to that video in my previous post above, I even quoted the relevant Congressional statute itself 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30). That statute reads, "The term "United States person" means-"(A) A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" (WHICH MEANS EVERY PERSON LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES AND EVERY U.S. CITIZEN ABROAD), contrary to what Dave contends. This means that not only does the case law and the W-9 form ITSELF prove that Dave's definition was wrong. It also means that the Congressional statute itself proves that Dave's definition was wrong.

ALL OF THIS MEANS THAT UNDER THE REAL DEFINITION OF "U.S. PERSON" CONTAINED IN THE LAW ITSELF, EVERY PERSON LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES (AND EVERY U.S. CITIZEN ABROAD) IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PAY INCOME TAXES ON W-9 INCOME (contrary to what Dave contends).

Again, because I thought that you were familiar with that video, I thought that you would make that connection (that because Dave's definition was wrong, his conclusion was also wrong), but I may have been mistaken in that regard. For that, I apologize. In the future, I will try to be more clear and complete in my explanations.

YOUR COMMENTS: If you go back to the 6:30 point in the video Dave explains what or who a US person is and how that term came to be.

MY RESPONSE: Nothing that Dave says will change the actual written words law above. And, the actual written words of the law itself (above) are all that matters. I do not care what Dave has to say. Dave is not Congress and Dave is not a federal court. This is about what the law itself says. Nothing else matters. Why is this reality about the law so difficult for people to grasp? LAW ONLY COMES FROM THE LAW ITSELF! Not from videos or media personalities.

YOUR COMMENT: I respect your opinion on the matter but also disagree with it.

MY RESPONSE: I realize that I sound like a broken record. But, I have no "opinion" about the law. The law is what it is. I did not write a single word of it. THE WORDS OF THE LAW ARE NOT MY WORDS! I merely deliver the words of the law to you, regardless of what those words are. What Dave thinks does not matter. What I think does not matter. What you think does not matter. The only thing that matters IS THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Why is this so difficult for people to follow?

YOUR COMMENT: Dave spent 17 years researching this book and as such put much more background info on not just the regulations in the IRS code but how those regs changed over time.

MY RESPONSE: Dave should have spent 17 years studying THE LAW ITSELF!

Did you know that THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS writes CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES? Did you know that mere unelected bureaucrats at mere REGULATORY AGENCIES (like the IRS) write mere RULES and REGULATIONS in furtherance of the CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES which they serve?

This means that mere IRS regulations ARE NOT CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES. Mere IRS regulations DO NOT HAVE THE SAME FORCE OF LAW WHICH CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES HAVE.

IN UNITED STATES V. MERSKY, 361 U.S. 431 (1960), THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EXPLAINED IT THIS WAY,

(BEGIN QUOTE)

"An ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION [like an IRS regulation], of course, IS NOT A "STATUTE." While in practical effect [these] REGULATIONS may be called "LITTLE LAWS,"[7] they are at most but OFFSPRING OF STATUTES. Congress alone may pass a statute... .

[7] Vom Baur, Federal Administrative Law, § 490, at 489."

(END QUOTE)

SEE PROOF OF THIS SUPREME COURT QUOTE at about 20% through the text HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12058633908971550957&q="little+laws"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003

So, CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES are HIGHER in the pecking order than mere IRS REGULATIONS (which Dave claims to have studied). That means that mere IRS REGULATIONS do not trump CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES. Instead, CONGRESSIONAL STATUES trump mere IRS REGULATIONS. This means that CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES are SUPERIOR to mere IRS REGULATIONS. This means that mere IRS REGULATIONS are INFERIOR to CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES.

FACT: INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS are controlling IF (AND ONLY IF) THEY CONFORM TO THE SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES WHICH THEY SERVE.

If there is a conflict between an INFERIOR IRS REGULATION and a SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE, the SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE will control.

Dave should have spent 17 years researching THE LAW ITSELF and how the law has changed over time. Studying mere INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS will not do the trick.

Court decisions interpret, explain and apply BOTH the INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS and the SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES which they serve. This means that the legal answers to all of the legal questions about the INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS and the SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES which they serve WILL BE FOUND IN CASE LAW OF THE COURTS.

This means that as intelligent, articulate and charismatic as Dave is, HE IS LOOKING FOR THE LAW IN THE WRONG PLACE!

YOUR COMMENT: The courts do get this wrong all the time or dismiss this as frivolous.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. THE COURTS ALWAYS GET THIS RIGHT ALL THE TIME! The courts follow SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES, not INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS, which do not have the same force of law of SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES which they serve.

YOUR COMMENT: They cop out and refuse to address the law as written in the IRS codes.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. The courts follow SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES, not INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS, which do not have the same force of law of the SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES which they serve.

YOUR COMMENT: So if the IRS code says one thing and the courts dismiss this thing as frivolous then you take the side of the courts and say that's what the law says.

MY RESPONSE: I do not take a "side". I merely tell you what the law is, regardless of what that may be. Nothing more. If an INFERIOR IRS REGULATION is in conflict with a SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE, the courts are LEGALLY REQUIRED to follow the SUPERIOR CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE which the INFERIOR IRS REGULATIONS serve.

Look, the truth is simply this: While IRS regulations really are INFERIOR to Congressional statutes, alleged "conflicts" between the INFERIOR IRS regulations and the SUPERIOR Congressional statutes and the decisions of the courts DO NOT ACTUALLY EXIST. Claims to the contrary are false.

These claims of imaginary "conflicts" between COURT DECISIONS and INFERIOR IRS regulations and SUPERIOR Congressional Statutes ARE NO MORE REAL THAN DAVE'S DEFINITION OF A "U.S. PERSON" IN HIS VIDEO ABOVE.

These claims of such"conflicts" are FAKE. They are IMAGINARY. They DO NOT EXIST. In the real world, SUPERIOR statutes, INFERIOR regulations and the court decisions which explain them are all perfectly consistent and in perfect harmony with one another.

YOUR COMMENT: Going forward if we are to have a meaningful conversation on the subject I would suggest that we both quote the IRS code and either discuss that portion of the code or cite court cases that refute in detail that portion of the code and not just dismiss them as frivolous.

MY RESPONSE: I like quotes. But, in the real world, court decisions do not "refute" EITHER superior Congressional statutes OR the inferior IRS regulations. In the real world, all three are perfectly consistent and in perfect harmony with one another. Alleged "conflicts" between SUPERIOR Congressional statutes, INFERIOR IRS regulations and the court decisions which explain them DO NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

The courts explain why all three are in perfect harmony with one another. Regardless, the courts really are the final word on the law. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I OBTAIN MY INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAW FROM CASE LAW. IT IS THE ABSOLUTE FINAL WORD ON THE LAW, NO MATTER WHAT!

YOUR COMMENT: That's not to say that there are not frivolous arguments made because there are. One problem with the tax honesty movement is that people like Larkin Rose and Pete hendrickson think they are correct when in fact they are wrong.

MY RESPONSE: So true! But. the "tax honesty movement"? REALLY?!!! ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?!!!

YOUR COMMENT: This muddies the waters for people who do have it correct like Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer.

MY RESPONSE: No, they don't. Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer are just better "salesmen" at peddling the same, old, lame, tired, useless bullshit. Nothing more.

All My Very Best, And A Happy New Year!

Snoop


REQUIRED READING ON DAVID ALBERT CHAMPION
https://www.facebook.com/pages/cate...ampion-is-Fraud-Money-Hungry-104058647874694/
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/david-champion
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-court-bars-nevada-man-promoting-tax-fraud-scheme
https://www.ktnv.com/news/former-sheriff-candidate-arrested-in-pahrump
https://www.facebook.com/nyecountysheriff/videos/dave-champion-arrest-10519/503694546819141/
https://pvtimes.com/news/former-nye-sheriffs-office-candidate-champion-arrested-65778/
https://news3lv.com/news/local/pahrump-man-arrested-charged-with-involuntary-servitude
THE IRS PLACES LIENS ON ALL THE PROPERTY OF (AND GARNISHES ALL THE WAGES OF) A POLICE OFFICER WHO FOLLOWED DAVE CHAMPION'S ADVICE. SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 40 % THROUGH THE TEXT HERE.
https://www.moabsunnews.com/news/article_0397ae14-3bdd-11e7-b2dd-bf9c297219bb.html ]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1640140209447412728&q="David+Champion"+tax&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
https://fliphtml5.com/yjta/xcwg/basic

 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
Hello Cigarlover, my old friend,

I bought Dave's "book" "The Income Tax: Shattering the Myths" which you recommended.

I have not yet received it.

Afterwards, I came across a list/summary of the tax protester arguments contained in that "book" in an article on him.

According to the list/summary I obtained, every single tax protester argument which appears in DAVE's book is already on the IRS list of frivolous tax protester arguments, ALL OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY FAILED IN THE COURTS and all of which I already posted in this thread above beginning in Post #84 above.

Indeed, this IRS list of FAILED frivolous tax protester arguments (above in this thread) was likely where Dave obtained all of the tax protester arguments which he incorporated into his "book".

If I had known all of this at the time, I would not have wasted my money on Dave's "book".

As you know, it is very, very expensive for a list of tax protester arguments which have ALREADY FAILED IN THE COURTS. .

With Great Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
Thank you for this case. You helped make my argument that the courts just dismiss anything as frivolous nowadays to support what the government wants.
I notice you did not take what Dave said in the video and support it with IRS regs that conflict with his contentions. You have taken the government position that the argument is frivolous.. In fact taking that argument without clarifying what the law actually says makes your frivolous argument , well, frivolous. :dduck:


If you go back to the 6:30 point in the video Dave explains what or who a US person is and how that term came to be.



I respect your opinion on the matter but also disagree with it. Dave spent 17 years researching this book and as such put much more background info on not just the regulations in the IRS code but how those regs changed over time.

The courts do get this wrong all the time or dismiss this as frivolous. They cop out and refuse to address the law as written in the IRS codes. So if the IRS code says one thing and the courts dismiss this thing as frivolous then you take the side of the courts and say thats what the law says.

Going forward if we are to have a meaningful conversation on the subject I would suggest that we both quote the IRS code and either discuss that portion of the code or cite court cases that refute in detail that portion of the code and not just dismiss them as frivolous.

Thats no to say that there are not frivolous arguments made because there are. One problem with the tax honesty movement is that people like Larkin Rose and Pete hendrickson think they are correct when in fact they are wrong. This muddies the waters for people who do have it correct like Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer.
Hello Cigarlover, my old friend,

Did my response to your comment (above) make any sense?

Was my explanation of the law (above) understandable?

Do you still believe that Dave is honest and telling his followers the truth about income tax law?

What exactly are your thoughts on this subject?

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,459
Likes
12,311
Pity Hendrickson's plan was so ineptly implemented.

Stealing the fruits of a man's labor and calling it "income tax" is a cruel joke for which we've fork tongued lieyers to thank.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
Pity Hendrickson's plan was so ineptly implemented.

Stealing the fruits of a man's labor and calling it "income tax" is a cruel joke for which we've fork tongued lieyers to thank.
Hello Solarion,

YOUR COMMENT: [It is a] Pity [that] Hendrickson's plan was so ineptly implemented.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Hendrickson's plan to freeload on the backs of American taxpayers was ineptly conceived.

YOUR COMMENT: Stealing the fruits of a man's labor and calling it "income tax" is a cruel joke

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. Stealing the benefits and privileges of living in the United States without contributing to the costs of those benefits and privileges is a more justifiable theft because it is only stealing from the American people who do contribute to those costs. FREELOADERS SHOULD BE HELD UP AS HEROES FOR TAKING A FREE RIDE ON THE BACKS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. MORE FREELOADERS!!! MORE SOCIALISM!!!

YOUR COMMENT: for which we've fork tongued lieyers to thank

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. LAWYERS LOVE PAYING INCOME TAXES! SO TO PROVE IT, SO THEY BURDENED THEMSELVES WITH THAT OBLIGATION!

Look Solarion, the truth is that nobody likes to pay income taxes, not even the lawyers who you blame for them. But, the reality is that national defense and other federal governmental services cost money. So, our elected federal lawmakers have seen fit to levy an income tax on the income of every person residing in the United States (citizen or not). I do not like to pay income taxes. But, I recognize that all of us who reside in the United States should contribute our far share of the costs of those governmental services. which we benefit from.

My real gripe with income taxes is that some Americans do not contribute their fair share of the costs of those services. Both the very poor and the very rich do not contribute their fair share. Jeff Bezos, the richest man on Earth who earns the highest income on Earth, paid NOTHING at all in income taxes last tax year. Donald Trump, who is also a billionaire, paid only $750.00 TOTAL. The billionaire investor, Warren Buffet, pays a much lower percentage of his income in income taxes than his secretary, who only earns a modest wage. Not only is that corrupt and unfair, that results in my income being taxed at a higher rate than it should be to pay for the tax breaks of those who get a free ride.

So, we don't need more freeloaders. We need less freeloaders. That would reduce the income tax burden that those of us in the middle would have to pay.

Best Regards,

Snoop.
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,459
Likes
12,311
MY RESPONSE: Agreed. Stealing the benefits and privileges of living in the United States without contributing to the costs of those benefits and privileges is a more justifiable theft because it is only stealing from the American people who do contribute to those costs. FREELOADERS SHOULD BE HELD UP AS HEROES FOR RIDING ON THE BACKS OF AMERICAN TAX PAYERS. MORE FREELOADERS!!! MORE SOCIALISM!!!
Just the kind of mental gymnastic rubbish one would expect from a recipient of a lieyer degree.

The out of control federal regime cockroaches consistently expand their own authority and power and use that as an excuse to steal ever more from the American people...even while refusing to secure the nation's borders. They encourage freeloaders and then place the burden to provide for those freeloaders on the backs of working Americans.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
522
Likes
113
Just the kind of mental gymnastic rubbish one would expect from a recipient of a lieyer degree.

The out of control federal regime cockroaches consistently expand their own authority and power and use that as an excuse to steal ever more from the American people...even while refusing to secure the nation's borders. They encourage freeloaders and then place the burden to provide for those freeloaders on the backs of working Americans.
Hello Solarion,

YOUR COMMENT: The out of control federal regime cockroaches consistently expand their own authority and power and use that as an excuse to steal ever more from the American people...even while refusing to secure the nation's borders. They encourage freeloaders and then place the burden to provide for those freeloaders on the backs of working Americans.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed! I could not possibly agree with you more! THAT IS WHY ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT! The left gives tax breaks (or cash subsidies) to the poor. The right gives tax breaks (or cash subsidies) to the rich. There is no one looking out for those of us in the middle who pay disproportionately high income tax rates to pay for those tax breaks and cash subsidies to others. Those of us in the middle are the one's getting the shaft!

Snoop
 
Last edited: