Quatloos is a Marxist Front!

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Your [sic] missing a bigger point. It's not an issue of being hated, I feel the bigger issue is that Quatloos has the habit of being very disrespectful to those folks. Lots of the Quatloos talk down to TP's like their [sic] dirt.

I think you may be missing a bigger point. People who engage in illegal activities are criminals with respect to those activities. Tax protesters who engage in such illegal activities are criminals.

And what legal proof do you have to make the determination that "TP's" are engaged in illegal activities, as you claim?

People who are not criminals are in some sense "better" than people who are criminals -- at least with respect to those particular acts which define the criminal as criminals
Yawn....scratching belly

There are good guys and bad guys here. We Quatloos regulars are the good guys.
LMHairyAO!!!!
The criminals -- the tax protesters -- are the bad guys.
Have you ever heard the phrase?...Contempt prior to investigation. That is definitely YOU. I am a tax protestor, does that make me "criminal"?

This has got to be the biggest load of horsey flies I've read in here to date! "Tax Protestors".... so much for the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and freedom to address one's gov't for grievances.

I've always worked a job, yet I havent filed a 1040 since the early 90's...Does that make me a criminal? I've never been indicted on any "tax crimes"

In this particular context, it is entirely appropriate for the good guys to "talk down to" the bad guys.

Hmmmm....even a judge has the class to professionally address a defendant by his/her name and not talk down to them.

And your excuse is?.....

There is another reason why it is appropriate to "talk down to" these people. These people are arrogant know-nothings -- in the context of federal tax law.

Nah, I think you have the market cornered on having an arrogant attitude chief..

For example, I know what I am talking about. Peter Hendrickson does not. For a tax protester to come here and presume to "lecture" me on tax law is the height of arrogance and stupidity. The tax protester believes strongly that he is correct. He is wrong. As Dan Evans has said, if you are going to strike the King, you had better kill him. If you are going to presume to lecture knowledgeable people about something you know nothing about, you had better be right. It is entirely appropriate to talk down to these people in this circumstance.

For a tax protester to come here as many do and presume to "lecture" us is a showing of disrespect. It is entirely appropriate for us to disrespect people who show disrespect in this way.

We know what we are talking about. The tax protesters do not.

Actually the opposite is true. When a TP comes in here, they are arrogantly inundated with how wrong they are by a large handful of the motley crew. They are laughed at, chastised, made fun of, called names, their user names are frequently manipulated....etc...etc...etc...

Just as you folks did me. However, I dont run from bullies. After one has faced numerous federal indictments in open court, few things really scare one any more.

Back to my point 2 paragraphs ago...So whom is truly the greater offender of peoples POV?

[.]

As the Emperor yet again demonstrates, across multiple threads over an extended length of time why he is the duly elected current Emperor of Frickentardistan.

There are many reasons why we laugh at, deride and generally poke fun at you and your ridiculous opinions, but you'll obviously never, ever "get" any of it.

We don't even expect you to, just as we don't expect most equally moronic TPs to ever come to their senses. Such is life when it comes to those who are impervious to reason.

[Famspear]

Dear Gold & Silver:

Perhaps you should look up the word "arrogance" in the dictionary. If you come here and post frivolous tax protester-denier type gibberish, yes you will be exposed. That is not "arrogance" on the part of the Quatloos regulars.

It is arrogance to presume to lecture others on a topic when the lecturer is not only not knowledgeable about the topic but also wrong on that topic.

By contrast, it is not "arrogance" for the Quatloos regulars to sternly and firmly correct the "lecturer" who comes here and arrogantly presumes to "teach" us something that is blatantly false.

With all due respect, I think your perception of what goes on here is flawed.

[wserra]

The board's "quote" function really isn't that hard to use, and makes replying to you much easier. Assuming that you want folks to reply to you.

Suppose Ernst Krebs, the schmuck who sold extract of apricot pits - actually largely cyanide - as a cure for cancer, were to appear in a medical forum. Should he be "respected for his difference in point of view"?

Should we respect doctors who prescribe Warfarin?

And off we go on a medical-profession rant. I think you probably know that isn't the point (and, if it continues, will be moved to its own thread in "Flame Wars"). The point is: how do you treat someone who is provably wrong, insists s/he is right, and tries to make others who don't know better believe something (for profit or not) which will get them in significant trouble? My answer: assuming s/he is polite, you answer politely at first, but make it clear that bullshit isn't mango sorbet.

Case in point: GaSE. In your first post here, you complain about "seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!" Now, in point of fact, we do "know" Springer. We know him to be one of those people who is provably wrong, insists he's right, loses at every turn, and (in his case) seeks to profit from screwing people. I don't need to know him "personally", any more than I need to know Bernard Madoff "personally". So how do you treat someone who defends him?

Politely enough, at first. Look at the first responses you received. Then you started making claims that you refused to substantiate, beginning with how Springer "helped me in a federal case and his help won me a victory". I didn't believe that then, and still don't, but my first response to it was a simple, polite request for proof. Your response: "I was facing up to 30 years. Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time. His plea was based on lack of jurisdiction in that the explosive had not entered into interstate commerce. He was right and we won!" Now, that's bullshit. As I and others pointed out at the time, "no jurisdiction" means "walk out of courthouse", not "do a year". You then spin out through namecalling ("'slaves' defending their 'masters'") and further nonsense (politicians' escrow accounts, among others).

Would you feel better if we told you it was mango sorbet?

[ASITStands]

Have you ever heard the phrase?...Contempt prior to investigation. That is definitely YOU. I am a tax protestor, does that make me "criminal"?

This has got to be the biggest load of horsey flies I've read in here to date! "Tax Protestors".... so much for the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and freedom to address one's gov't for grievances.

I've always worked a job, yet I havent filed a 1040 since the early 90's...Does that make me a criminal? I've never been indicted on any "tax crimes"

And, here, you admitted you willfully failed to file a tax return (if such was due).

Does that make you a criminal at 26 U.S.C. § 7203? Potentially, yes. Just because no Information has been brought against you does not make what you did or didn't do illegal.

And, yes, it's an "information" and not an "indictment." Misdemeanor not felony.

If for some reason the government was investigating you for tax crimes (and you'd know), it could be they'd stack both willful failure to file with some form of evasion, of assessment or payment, and whatever "indictment" (felony) they'd bring later is still being investigated.

It could be you've used sophisticated means to evade assessment or payment.

How should we treat you with admissions such as this? Should we tiptoe around the subject? Or, should we speak plain words and challenge your admissions and statements for veracity?

Maybe thou dost protest too much!

[Duke2Earl]

I've always worked a job, yet I havent filed a 1040 since the early 90's...Does that make me a criminal? I've never been indicted on any "tax crimes" [/color] [/b]

If you had taxable income above the legal minimum amount the short and complete answer is YES, you are a criminal. This is not subject to debate, discussion, excuses or whatever bullcrap you want to sling around. You are a criminal. Whether you have been indited has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are in violation of the law and thus by definition, you are a criminal. Nothing more to discuss. You and your opinions are entitled to as much respect as I give to criminals.... little or none. You want respect... you are unlikely to find any here.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Case in point: GaSE. In your first post here, you complain about "seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!" Now, in point of fact, we do "know" Springer. No you do not. You know what he writes and what he does in court, but YOU do Not know him. You know of him. To know someone is to know them personally. To claim that "we "know" Springer" is dead wrong.

I DO know him personally. Now, I will agree with you, he has and does come up with some pretty crazy legal theories, and if he's trying things that don't wotk, unfortunately that is part of his legal evolution, his learning curve. However, the prize for persistence definitely goes to him.

When he tries something and it doesnt work, he presses on; he persists, and he has persisted in his fight for over 20 years, which is more than I can say for most people.

I know Lindsey. I know his heart and his commitment to fighting the fraud of the irs and of the feds in general.

"I'm not against the government, I'm against government fraud." Lindsey Springer.


We know him to be one of those people who is provably wrong, insists he's right, loses at every turn, and (in his case) seeks to profit from screwing people.

That is PURE BULLSHIT!!!! Lindsey is one of the most compassionate Christians I have ever met, and to claim that he screws people is pure bullshit, and it demonstrates how little you really know about him. That is not his heart.


I don't need to know him "personally", any more than I need to know Bernard Madoff "personally". So how do you treat someone who defends him?
Do you have any German Nazi's in your bloodline?

Politely enough, at first. Look at the first responses you received. Then you started making claims that you refused to substantiate, beginning with how Springer "helped me in a federal case and his help won me a victory". I didn't believe that then, and still don't, but my first response to it was a simple, polite request for proof. Your response: "I was facing up to 30 years. Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time. His plea was based on lack of jurisdiction in that the explosive had not entered into interstate commerce. He was right and we won!" Now, that's bullshit. If I were to offer you a precious gem, and you looked at it, and 4whatever reason replied, "No! It's nothing but a worthless rock!" Does your opinion diminish the value of my gem. No.

As I and others pointed out at the time, "no jurisdiction" means "walk out of courthouse", not "do a year". I did a year in county jails on another charge that was part of the same indictment. For a lawyer, you not sounding very knowledgeable about this sort of thing. I have nothing to lie about, nor any lies to get caught in, simply because I LIVED IT.


You then spin out through namecalling ("'slaves' defending their 'masters'") I'm simply calling a 'spade a spade'. Tell me this oh wise one...

Does the fed gov't have the authority to pass a law that's sez that part of your earnings belong to them?

If you answer "Yes" Then you have placed yourself in the same bondage as being a slave. It's not a put down, it's a simple, and yet accurate observation.

You are their "slave' and "they" are your "Master". Now rise up and rebel against your "Master", and your "Master" will put you away. It isn't rocket science.



Would you feel better if we told you it was mango sorbet?

Personally I don't care for mango sorbet, so your welcome to have mine.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

I've always worked a job, yet I havent filed a 1040 since the early 90's...Does that make me a criminal? I've never been indicted on any "tax crimes" [/color] [/b]

If you had taxable income above the legal minimum amount the short and complete answer is YES, you are a criminal. This is not subject to debate, discussion, excuses or whatever bullcrap you want to sling around. You are a criminal. Whether you have been indited has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are in violation of the law and thus by definition, you are a criminal. Nothing more to discuss. You and your opinions are entitled to as much respect as I give to criminals.... little or none. You want respect... you are unlikely to find any here.

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

[Duke2Earl]

Does the fed gov't have the authority to pass a law that's sez that part of your earnings belong to them?

If you answer "Yes" Then you have placed yourself in the same bondage as being a slave. It's not a put down, it's a simple, and yet accurate observation.

Yes, the federal government does have the right enact a law to tax your income. No, that does not make anyone a "slave." Period. Nothing further to discuss. You would not know an accurate observation if it hit you in the face.

[Joey Smith]

How can you be a "slave" when you are free to leave at any time? Head for the Mexican border -- they won't stop you (you'll just have to worry about fighting through the hoardes of Mexicans trying to get in the U.S.).

The "slavery" argument is one of the dumbest around -- those who make it are certainly slaves to their own stupidity (i.e., they can't escape it).

[Famspear]

I've always worked a job, yet I havent filed a 1040 since the early 90's...Does that make me a criminal? I've never been indicted on any "tax crimes" [/color] [/b]

If you had taxable income above the legal minimum amount the short and complete answer is YES, you are a criminal. This is not subject to debate, discussion, excuses or whatever bullcrap you want to sling around. You are a criminal. Whether you have been indited has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are in violation of the law and thus by definition, you are a criminal. Nothing more to discuss. You and your opinions are entitled to as much respect as I give to criminals.... little or none. You want respect... you are unlikely to find any here.

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

"Show me the law, show me the law."

Why don't you ask Edward Lewis Brown to show you the law.

Nobody is required to "show you the law," pal. You are already aware that the law exists. Contrary to what you people seem to think, there is absolutely no legal requirement that you be shown the law in order for you to be legally required to file a Form 1040 for a tax year in which your gross income exceeds the applicable amount prescribed under the statute and related administrative pronouncements.

[Brandybuck]

If you eat a good balanced diet you will be healthier. But sometimes we get sick anyway. It's a part of life. And when we get sick we can be little sick or very sick. If you're just a little sick then garlic probably fine as a blood thinner. But if you're really sick then Warfarin may be in order. Better to have some small doses of rat poison keeping you alive, than a whole bunch of garlic and dead from a clot in the brain.

I would rather trust someone who has spent years in medical school and additional years in on-the-job training and residency, than some mimeographed flyer stuck to the bulletin board in the Whole Foods. Yeah, the doctor is going to make a fat profit on me. So what?

[Pottapaug1938]

If laws imposing taxes upon us make us slaves, then ANY law which imposes ANY restrictions on us makes us slaves.

Sometimes I think that our national motto shouldn't be "e pluribus unum", but "I doan' wanna DO that, an' you can't MAKE me!"

[The Operative]

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

The law can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large in Volume 100, starting on page 2085. Various amendments to that law can be found in later volumes. However, to make it easier, the law can be read in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Title 26 establishes prima facie the law. In short, § 6011 and § 6012 require a person to make a return, using the forms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, if that person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount.

[wserra]

When he tries something and it doesnt work, he presses on; he persists, and he has persisted in his fight for over 20 years, which is more than I can say for most people.

Y'know, I agree with you on this one. Most people will figure out that something isn't gonna work in far less than twenty years.

Lindsey is one of the most compassionate Christians I have ever met, and to claim that he screws people is pure bullshit, and it demonstrates how little you really know about him. That is not his heart.

Then his heart is in a different body from the rest of him.

Do you have any German Nazi's in your bloodline

Nope. How about you?

I have nothing to lie about, nor any lies to get caught in, simply because I LIVED IT.

My Aunt Tillie grows prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquility. Trust me.

[LPC]

The "slavery" argument is one of the dumbest around -- those who make it are certainly slaves to their own stupidity (i.e., they can't escape it).

There's a quotation attributed to Goethe (I can't verify the quote from any reliable source) that tax deniers love to spout: "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

What they never seem to realize is that the converse is equally true, and that none are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are enslaved.

There's a similar problem with a quote attributed to Zapata, that "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." As Joseph Heller pointed out in Catch-22, the reality is that it is better to live on your fee than to die on your knees.

Incidentally, the more I think about the Goethe "quote," the more I'm sure it's a phony because it always starts "None are," which is ungrammatical because "none" ("niemand" in German) takes a singular verb (as does "niemand"). The comparison between the singular "none" and the plural "those" is also very strange. Better grammar would be "None is so hopelessly enslaved as one who falsely believes he is free" or "The most hopelessly enslaved are those who falsely believe themselves to be free."

A better Goethe quote (from Bartlett's): "Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action."

[GoldandSilverEagles]

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

The law can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large in Volume 100, starting on page 2085. Various amendments to that law can be found in later volumes. However, to make it easier, the law can be read in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Title 26 establishes prima facie the law. In short, § 6011 and § 6012 require a person to make a return, using the forms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, if that person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount.

I want the law, written and passed by Congress that SPECIFICALLY states that I am required, by Federal Law, to file US Form 1040.

Filing form 1040 is a very specific act. I want the specific law that requires doing this very specific act.

So, some of the motley crew are branding me a "criminal" for not filing for 1040....lol

Remember now, a 1040 is signed under "penalties of perjury". So, according to the logic of the status quo in here, I am a "criminal" for not voluntarily giving the federal government information they can use to against me criminally?

Some of you (and not necessarily you Operative,) are a truly twisted bunch. Some of you definitely have a slaves mentality.

"Beam me up Scott, there's no intelligent life down here."

[GoldandSilverEagles]

How can you be a "slave" when you are free to leave at any time? Head for the Mexican border -- they won't stop you (you'll just have to worry about fighting through the hoardes of Mexicans trying to get in the U.S.).

You don't have a clue about moving to Mexico... before you can ask for Mexican citizenship, you must "prove" that you will be a "productive" citizen (have employment lined up already, have funds in the bank, or be setting up an established business). Mexico is more than willing to send their folks this way, but try moving to Mexico legally...WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY.

In terms of leaving the country, yes, one is free to leave. However, one is still a "slave" to the US gov't in that the feds WILL DEMAND that you STILL pay taxes on what you earn outside the country.

It's similar to how King George DEMANDED taxes from the early colonists when they first moved to this continent.

The "slavery" argument is one of the dumbest around -- those who make it are certainly slaves to their own stupidity (i.e., they can't escape it).

And how do you prove that YOU ARE NOT a financial tax slave to the feds?

They always demand payment, and the American taxpayer always bends over.

Talk is cheap. If you claim you are not a tax slave to the feds, how do you back your words?

[Famspear]

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

The law can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large in Volume 100, starting on page 2085. Various amendments to that law can be found in later volumes. However, to make it easier, the law can be read in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Title 26 establishes prima facie the law. In short, § 6011 and § 6012 require a person to make a return, using the forms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, if that person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount.

I want the law, written and passed by Congress that SPECIFICALLY states that I am required, by Federal Law, to file US Form 1040.

Filing form 1040 is a very specific act. I want the specific law that requires doing this very specific act.

This is the kind of crapola we've been talking about. Actually, there is a specific set of statutes and regulations that leads inexorably to the legal result that you are required to specifically file Form 1040 (or a form in that series, such as 1040A or 1040EZ). I can provide those to you later. So, you lose on that point. There actually is a specific law (it's a regulation, combined with various statutes) that literally says, Form "1040." You backed yourself into a corner on that point.

There is a problem with your logic, though, my friend. Your logic is essentially: Unless there is a specific statute or regulation that says "1040," I am not required to file that form. And, of course, that is nonsense. That's what I call an "imaginary rule." Tax protesters are full of these kinds of imaginary rules of law.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

"Show me the law, show me the law."

YOUR DAMN RIGHT!

Why don't you ask Edward Lewis Brown to show you the law.

Nobody is required to "show you the law," pal. You are already aware that the law exists.

Wrong! No one has ever shown it to me, pal.

Contrary to what you people seem to think, there is absolutely no legal requirement that you be shown the law in order for you to be legally required to file a Form 1040 for a tax year in which your gross income exceeds the applicable amount prescribed under the statute and related administrative pronouncements.

You must be an irs agent? Am I right? You sound like irs agents I've dealt with in the past.

If your gonna claim I am required to file 1040, per law, then you'd better be damn well prepared to show me the law you are claiming I have to follow, if and when I DEMAND to see it.

It is my right to be presented with the law i am being required to follow. Period.