mrjaycanadian wrote:Hey Famspear.
Umm, legal / lawful / illegal / unlawful are (4) words, with very different meanings.
There are no synonyms in law, especially in contract law – ‘shall’ & ‘must’ are not the same words.
You don't know what you're talking about.
No, the Government cannot license something that is in itself, unlawful.
That's just more gibberish.
You are aware that before the invention of the automobile, driving was being performed across the country?
Cowboys used to drive the cattle to the market traffic (commerce), which was 400+ miles away.
Did these cowboys have a license? No, off course not, as it was lawful.
Today, by licensing this same activity, that in no way takes from it being lawful since.
A Government license is the granting of a privilege, while performing a function of government.
No. Not exactly. For example, a driver's license involves the grant of privilege, but my driving does not involve a function of government.
Ex – Walmart grants the privilege to its stock receivers of driving a forklift, with a Walmart forklift license. That doesn’t stop that some man from driving a forklift at his second job or at home, that license is only to be used when performing a function of the grantor of the license.
Thank you for sharing that with us, but you're still going nowhere.
You wrote: “My position is you should want to learn what the law is, because such knowledge is generally beneficial to you. And the law doesn't belong to the "legal society" (by which I assume you mean those persons licensed as attorneys and counselors at law -- you know, lawyers, solicitors, etc.). In a sense, the law belongs to all of us.”
Let’s see – I go into Court & submit paperwork siting Smith vs Smith, Johns vs Keating & Ford vs USA.
What is the Judge going to say – “Jay, that’s your opinion and as you are not licensed, your opinion lacks merit.”
What are you going to say: “Jay, you are completely wrong.”
I could try to learn legalese & procedure until I’m blue in the face, if I’m not a Bar member, everything I do is just an opinion without merit. That’s the reason why wish to remain an idiot, I am deemed incompetent to play their game, and as you know the incompetent cannot be tried. Yes, incompetent was a legal and a common meaning.
I still think you may need a lawyer at some point.
You wrote: “You just need to be bright enough to recognize that you need a lawyer to present your case. Let your lawyer "play in court" on your behalf.”
Umm, you are aware that your well-being is the 4th position of a lawyer’s duties right?
1st duty – To the Bar society
2nd duty – To the Court
3rd duty – To the public at large
4th duty – To his client
You actually got one partly right! At least, under Texas law....
For a person licensed as an attorney and counselor at law in Texas, the first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
The second duty is to uphold the Texas Constitution.
The third duty is to honestly demean oneself in the practice of law.
And the fourth duty is to represent one's client to the best of one's ability. So, at least you got #4 correct!
If you are paying for a lawyer, for whatever the matter – you would feel comfortable to being the 4th concern on your large list of duties?
Yes. I would feel comfortable about that. If YOU don't feel comfortable about the fact that the lawyer's first duty is NOT to his client under our legal system, that's your problem.
Yes, I have read Daniel B. Evans reference to ‘tax protesters’ and yes he is correct when he stated – “Most tax protesters really don't understand what goes on in courts, or court opinions. They don't understand "due process" or "jurisdiction" or "burden of proof." To them, what goes on in court is just moving words around.”
But as for the – “It's incomprehensible and nonsensical to them, which makes it the same as magic.”
This I don’t agree with, it’s the thing about human nature, people will read into things, and specifically into tax & IRS related papers, more than is what is actually written on the paper.
Ex – When people get IRS Notices, they believe the IRS is coming against them, when in fact is the US Attorney that is actual party they are interacting with in Court.
No. When you receive an IRS notice, you are not interacting with United States Attorney or a Court.
I have read these people papers and no where on the paper does it read IRS, but they keep telling me it’s the IRS coming after them. I see their name & US Attorney, it’s a tax issue, but no where is the phrase IRS.
If you see the name of the U.S. attorney and you don't see the words "Internal Revenue Service," that's a different notice. In that case, the notice is not coming from the IRS.
This is not rocket science.
Yes, Daniel has it spot on with – “Their response is to try to rearrange the words to find the right incantation, the right spell, to allow them to win. What they write is meaningless gibberish to us because what we write is meaningless gibberish to them. They respond in an imitative but nonsensical way because superficial manipulations of words is all that they can understand.”
Again yes – “And when I say they can't understand, I'm not necessarily commenting on their intelligence, because it's really a combination of ignorance and emotional blockage. They don't really want to understand anything that means they're wrong, so they don't really try to understand.”
The biggest problem I see is this because people do not understand:
1) Paying taxes is voluntary
2) On will go to jail, If one does not pay their taxes
Yes taxes are voluntary, the problem people have is they believe they have to pay taxes, they just need to change there belief and have the IRS (who has the burden of proof) prove they owe taxes, instead of jumping to that conclusion.
As already explained in other threads over the past few years, the word "voluntary" in this context has more than one meaning. "Voluntary" in the context of "our voluntary tax system" refers only to the fact that people are expected to voluntarily file tax returns and pay taxes -- even though it is legally required and even though they can be punished, under the law, for not voluntarily complying.
This is not rocket science.
Tax protesters argue over an imaginary tax amount, instead of having the IRS prove their tax request is valid & verified.
In a non-criminal U.S. federal tax case, the government is not generally required to prove that the tax amount claimed by the government is the correct amount. In almost all cases, the legal burden of proof is on the taxpayer.
Mr. Dwight E. Avis, head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,:
“Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as day and night.” - Feb. 3 thru Mar. 13, 1953
1971, the following quote was found in the IRS instruction booklet for Form 1040:
“Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe.”
Again, none of that means that you're not required to by law to VOLUNTARILY do just what is described there.
The real reason tax protesters write gibberish is that they don’t understand basic concept of stopping the use of their own unfounded presumptions, that they are using when dealing with the IRS.
Some is ignorance, some self-righteousness, some is anger towards an imaginary foe, as they see the IRS as some big monster to fear, when they should just stop, think and ask those in the IRS a few questions.
No, the real reason tax protesters write gibberish is that they are trying to justify their own beliefs -- or actions.
Here are a few questions I would ask the IRS:
1) Please define ‘income’?
2) Please define ‘taxable income’?
3) Is there ‘untaxable income’?
4) Is there a difference between ‘taxable income’ & ‘untaxable income’?
5) If yes, specifically what is the difference between ‘taxable income’ & ‘untaxable income’?
6) Have you determined the amount of tax you believe I owe?
7) Would you please sent me an itemized True Statement & a True Bill, signed under Full Commercial Liability that the tax you claim is owed, is calculated to the penny and if which you have first-hand personal knowledge of and are available to testify to under oath or affirmation in open court?
The IRS is not under a legal or moral obligation to answer those questions, or to have "first-hand personal knowledge" or to "testify under oath", etc., about your taxes.
Then follow up with:
Dear IRS. After you have answered & presented all of the above required information and materials, I would be happy to pay you every single penny, as soon as you provide me with the True bill & itemized Statement. Thank-you.
*If the IRS has a tax amount great, but I would make them prove it first.
No, you wouldn't. You cannot "make" the IRS prove it first.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons