LostHopers Just Don't Get It

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Over at LostHopes, Richard614 posted a link to a pdf of a 1915 treatise on income taxation by Henry Black (of Black's Law Dictionary fame):
http://state-citizen.org/A_Treatise_on_ ... xation.pdf
What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by ASITStands »

Dr. Caligari wrote:Over at LostHopes, Richard614 posted a link to a pdf of a 1915 treatise on income taxation by Henry Black (of Black's Law Dictionary fame):
http://state-citizen.org/A_Treatise_on_ ... xation.pdf
What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.
Excellent, Doctor!

I downloaded the file for later review but had not read that page.

Where's 'Weston White' when you need him? Doesn't he cite Black's Law Dictionary?

It doesn't appear to be searchable, but wouldn't it be a hoot if it defined income?

And, what if it mentioned Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations?

EDIT: The index of files is here.
Evil Squirrel Overlord
Emperor of rodents, foreign and domestic
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: All holed up in Minnesota with a bunch of nuts

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by Evil Squirrel Overlord »

Look the LoHos lost this parchment for a reason. We do not know the authenticity of these documents of which you speak. The early church fathers did not include them in the cannon of the Holy CTC therefore they must be suspect.


So let it be written...


So let it be done...
Are you saying that Ron Paul serves as a convenient chew toy to keep stupid puppies occupied so they don't roll in the garbage? -grixit
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by LPC »

Dr. Caligari wrote:What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.
Has anyone told Sybil?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by ASITStands »

LPC wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.
Has anyone told Sybil?
The definition of "income" starts on page 328, and there's footnotes. Hmm.

Lots of good stuff there to rebut tax denier arguments (if you're into old documents).
Tax Man

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by Tax Man »

LPC wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.
Has anyone told Sybil?
Youre gonna have to give him some time to think about it. This is a devastating blow for the man who loves citing the dead sea scrolls as evidence of the meaning of income.
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by Quixote »

The imaging is a bit flawed. The left or right 1/3 of some pages were not copied.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by LPC »

Most interesting questions of the day:

PeacefulKancer started a thread based on this citation:
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument “that he is not an ‘employee’ under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer,” stating, “[he] mistakenly assumes that this definition of ‘employee’ excludes all other wage earners.”
After several people speculated about why the court didn't really mean what it said, PK raised two questions:
PeacefulKancer wrote:1. Where can we get copies of court cases?
2. What court was this held in. If Wisconsin (as I guessed) what bearing does that have on Federal law?
Yes, analyze the opinion first, then read the opinion, and then try to figure out what court rendered the opinion.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by . »

Everyone knows that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is Lake Michigan, so obviously this belonged in an Admiralty court, where he obviously would have won.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Red Cedar PM
Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:10 pm

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by Red Cedar PM »

I want some of whatever these guys are smoking. Seriously though, thinking that federal law does not apply to the states unless it is a military base or other federal land is just about the dumbest of the dumb things that these people have come up with. I think that's even more whacko than thinking typing your name in all caps or putting a colon in or writing refused for cause on everything will somehow get you out of your obligations. People this dumb should have to apply for a license to breed.
"Pride cometh before thy fall."

--Dantonio 11:03:07
Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: LostHopers Just Don't Get It

Post by Duke2Earl »

Red Cedar PM wrote:I want some of whatever these guys are smoking. Seriously though, thinking that federal law does not apply to the states unless it is a military base or other federal land is just about the dumbest of the dumb things that these people have come up with. I think that's even more whacko than thinking typing your name in all caps or putting a colon in or writing refused for cause on everything will somehow get you out of your obligations. People this dumb should have to apply for a license to breed.
It's all just a matter of degree. I have had discussions with Tax Directors at major corporations that would make your head spin. They will spend thousands of dollars on consulting fees to try to avoid filing disclosures that wouldn't make the slightest difference in their tax liability if they made them but could cause big penalties if they didn't. Sanity is a very rare comodity.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman