CtC loser's web page

[Nikki]

Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax

[webhick]

Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax

Interesting how they ripped the design from the Quatloos one. In fact, it could easily be confused.

I guess LHers have to resort to deception to make people believe them.

[The Operative]

Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax

Interesting how they ripped the design from the Quatloos one. In fact, it could easily be confused.

I guess LHers have to resort to deception to make people believe them.

It goes way beyond that. They were too lazy to copy the graphic files to their server and to update the img tags, so all the img tags point to the graphic files on quatloos. They even copied the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I guess they believe if they include the copyright on their copied page that they aren't violating the copyright.

[webhick]

Cover the keyboards, then visit Here is the Law That Does Not Make The Average American Citizen or Resident Liable for the Federal Income Tax

Interesting how they ripped the design from the Quatloos one. In fact, it could easily be confused.

I guess LHers have to resort to deception to make people believe them.

It goes way beyond that. They were too lazy to copy the graphic files to their server and to update the img tags, so all the img tags point to the graphic files on quatloos. They even copied the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I guess they believe if they include the copyright on their copied page that they aren't violating the copyright.

And The Operative tacks on "stealing bandwidth" to the list of offenses. It's like they're too stupid to realize that this site is filled with lawyers.

Next up, they'll start forging the main site as well. Good luck to them when the hammer falls.

[jg]

The "argument" is summarized by the author of that page as:

Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.

But if the Constitution is the supreme law of our nation, and the Constitution grants judicial power to the Supreme Court; why is the "argument" directly contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court that the income tax is NOT a direct tax.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) :

Without stating the minor differences, it may be said with substantial accuracy that the divergent reasoning was this: On the one hand, that the tax was not in the class of direct taxes requiring apportionment, because it was not levied directly on property because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost; and on the other, that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership. Putting out of view the difference of reasoning which led to the concurrent conclusion in the Hylton Case, it is undoubted that it came to pass in legislative practice that the line of demarcation between the two great classes of direct taxes on the one hand and excises, duties, and imposts on the other, which was exemplified by the ruling in that case, was accepted and acted upon. In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the text writers.<cites omitted>

Upon the lapsing of a considerable period after the repeal of the income tax laws referred to, in 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 509, chap. 349], an act was passed laying a tax on incomes from all classes of property and other sources of revenue which was not apportioned, and which therefore was of course assumed to come within the classification of excises, duties, and imposts which were subject to the rule of uniformity, but not to the rule of apportionment. The constitutional validity of this law was challenged on the ground that it did not fall within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, but was direct in the constitutional sense, and was therefore void for want of apportionment, and that question came to this court and was passed upon in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , <cites omitted> The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the all embracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law to be unconstitutional in substance for these reasons: Concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent. As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them. Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' -a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress. bold added

For those all too familiar with this topic, please excuse the need to repeat this again.

[grixit]

Still, the invitation to discuss the issues points here, so maybe in the long run it'll help get some people off the koolaide.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Isn't that just pathetically desperate.

At least they're honest about their plagarism:

The purpose of this web page is simple: This page was created to be a fun and challenging way to refute the myriad of misconceptions spread through the webpage located here and was designed to represent to you the facts about the laws that makes the average American citizen or resident not liable for the federal income tax. So, for all you reality deniers, scam artists, and so called "tax professionals" or for just those trying to find out the truth, here it is:

What strikes me as odd is that in the time Quatloos has been up no one from the tax protestor movement has made any serious attempts to hack this site.

At least none that I'm aware of.

[Dezcad]

Could someone teach him the proper usage of the "who" and "whom"?

A lesson in sentence fragments might be good also:

This group ever more growing and vigilant with each passing year, serving to enlarge and strengthen the Tax Honesty Movement as a whole.

How about a run-on sentence:

A small percentage of the individuals existing within this group are factually cognizant of the realization concerning the truth about federal taxation directly pertains to current perceptions and misunderstandings based in Fundamental Law and that they as well as other have been taken advantage of by way of some combination involving their government and greedy self-serving professionals within the occupational tax community, it is because of this that individuals within this group feel a true motivation, a true desire to do something spectacular and worthy to create a better Nation; nay, a better world, for both the future of the global environment, their families, and yours.

And, for me, the clincher:

Many individuals within this group have graduated from higher education and further still many more are victims of public education

Clearly, Weston is not a victim.

[Nikki]

Wouldn't it be interesting if someone made some slight modifications to THIS site to move the various design elements to a different location and replace the originals (which would then be picked up by the LoserHead) with something like "I'm an effing moron" or "This was posted from <insert favorite fedreal prison name>" or some appropriate graphic image such as a double-wide being repossessed?

Of course, no one here has the technical expertise or innate evil nature to do anything like that -- without letting the rest of us know when it's available for viewing.

[jg]

Wouldn't it be interesting if ...

With a mind like that, my prayers go out to your spouse (or similarly significant other) !

[ASITStands]

Two observations:

I guess they believe if they include the copyright on their copied page that they aren't violating the copyright.

Someone ought to enforce the copyright. Mike put the fear of God in Weston.

And, there's a reason why Weston's not a Designated Warrior.

This latest project of his is probably one example why's he's not trusted by the Admin.

MAJO0R EDIT: Weston caught me! "Might" put the fear of God in Weston.

I guess I'm just too "delusional" to catch such things. Oh, well.

[Dezcad]

FWIW, here's the domain registration data:

Registrant Name:Weston White
Registrant Organization:TEAMCIC:OIF
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 1268
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Fresno
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:93715
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5599420303

[Judge Roy Bean]

Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.

Wow. I thought the Dems were in power.

[Imalawman]

Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.

Wow. I thought the Dems were in power.

Just for now, we will rise again!!

btw - i just love that they always put "tax professional" in quotes and then add "so called". Just like those so called "medical professionals". ah, the humor of observing the dim-witted.

[ASITStands]

FWIW, here's the domain registration data:

Registrant Name:Weston White
Registrant Organization:TEAMCIC:OIF
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 1268
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Fresno
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:93715
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5599420303

I'd think an appropriate letter to the registrant would do the trick.

I noticed there's a link to the Quatloos Forum at the bottom for "further discussion."

Wonder if that's in preparation of Lost Horizons going dark? Or, is it our delusional ways?

Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!

[webhick]

Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!

It's funny because when I read Weston's work I usually picture him as a teenager jacked up on energy drinks. Does the "chicken" tactic still work on teenagers?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!

It's funny because when I read Weston's work I usually picture him as a teenager jacked up on energy drinks. Does the "chicken" tactic still work on teenagers?

Only if you get three or four kids in his age group calling him the same thing.

Peer pressure is a bitch.

[The Observer]

Weston White is still too "chicken" to come here and debate face to face!

It's funny because when I read Weston's work I usually picture him as a teenager jacked up on energy drinks. Does the "chicken" tactic still work on teenagers?

Maybe we have to use the right term. The term "chicken" may be seen as too "fiftyish" by the current generation. I know that "double-dog dare ya" was effective several years ago, but I haven't kept up; it may be out of fashion as well.

[LOBO]

That page may be strange to us, but I think it is more directed to Bizarro World, where it would be factually and legally correct.

Oh, and for kids these days, instead of chicken, you may need to use a slang term for a part of the female anatomy.

[LPC]

I was updating my Tax Protester FAQ and decided to check some of Weston White's citations, and found an error I'd not seen before. He's got the traditional "quote" from Lucas v. Earl that is actually a quote from the losing argument, as well as a new screw-up I hadn't seen before:

"The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as 'incomes' every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.’"

Which is supposed to be from Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 114 (1925), but isn't.

The taxpayer in Burk-Waggoner was challenging the application of a corporate income tax to an unincorporated association. The Supreme Court first confirmed the application of the statute, then addressed the constitutionality of taxing the association itself for income that under state law was owned by the members of the association:

The claim that the Act, if so construed, violates the Constitution is also unsound. It is true that Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact. But the thing to which the tax was here applied is confessedly income earned in the name of the association. It is true that Congress cannot convert into a corporation an organization which by the law of its state is deemed to be a partnership. But nothing in the Constitution precludes Congress from taxing as a corporation an association which, although unincorporated, transacts its business as if it were incorporated.

The first part of WW's quotation ("The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as 'incomes' every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive") is not from the Supreme Court, but from the DC Circuit's first opinion in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 8/22/2006), vacated on rehearing, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 7/3/2007), in which it held that taxing compensation for non-physical injuries was unconstitutional. What WW is quoting therefore is not from the Supreme Court, but from a circuit court opinion that included a brief quotation from the Burk-Waggoner opinion.

And, of course, neither the Murphy opinions nor the Burk-Waggoner opinion have anything to do with whether wages and salaries are incomes subject to tax.