Legal Bear

[Nikki]

I found a photo of that in my computer and used the number to find the current link with the C.F.R.

It proves my point. It was years ago so I was not sure what I was looking for. But Nikki hit it for me! The authority goes before the OMB and they just assign a number. And it has been the same number since the PRA of 1980 so it would be the reason the DoJ backed off the LAWRENCE prosecution. Bingo!!

Thanks again Nikki.

Regards,

David Merrill.

And exactly where is it a requirement that a new or different number be assigned every year?

The specific reason DoJ moved to dismiss the Lawrence case has been spelled out in detail in this thread and it had absolutely nothing to do with the PRA act or the OMB number.

Your "Bingo!" just fell flat on its face.

[.]

And it has been the same number since the PRA of 1980

Ignoring the fact that even if OMB had never issued any number AT ALL, liability to file and pay wouldn't be affected in the least.

That must irk Van Pelt no end. The IRS/Treasury could have flaunted the PRA requirements entirely, ignored them totally, and it still wouldn't make a bit of difference as to anyones civil or criminal liability under 26 USC. The horror!

If one aspires to be a de-tax guru worthy of prosecution, or even just to be a run-of-the-mill internet attention-whore who doesn't get laughed at, one must come up with something better than ancient PRA/OMB crapola which has ignominiously crashed and burned and been formally legally buried at least a dozen times.

[notorial dissent]

I seem to recall at some point reading a citation a year or so back that someone found that specifically excludes IRS forms from the PRA, which should blow the whole PRA nonsense permanently out of the water, just can’t remember where I saw it.

[David Merrill]

Still waiting...

Clowns around here just love the misdirection and obfuscation. Wesley?

This caught my eye:

I seem to recall at some point reading a citation a year or so back that someone found that specifically excludes IRS forms from the PRA, which should blow the whole PRA nonsense permanently out of the water, just can’t remember where I saw it.

Funny you cannot remember what it was exactly - your proposed interference to a 'complete defense'.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... lidity.wav

Wesley will know what my point was. Probably because he knows Nikki better than I do and I have been consistently making it all along. And it is right there at the top too. Trained lawyers look for title blocks and such...

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Wesley will know what my point was.

Sorry, David, Homey don' play dat.

The "you know what I mean" stuff is a common tack by those who can't make their own points with sufficient coherence to pass the smell test. It takes different forms. For example, consider "The Tunguska 'meteorite' blast occurred on June 30, the same date that superhuman swimmer Michael Phelps was born. Hmmm." This is similar to what David attempts here. Perhaps David knows that, if he actually states a proposition, there are many posters here capable of shooting it down. So he tries to get someone else to guess at his "point". Then he will be free to either criticize that poster, or claim that the poster hasn't divined the true complex subtlety (subtle complexity?) of his thought - and the guessing game continues.

David, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Nikki]

David, I have no idea what you're talking about.

That makes two of you.

[David Merrill]

Have it your way then Wesley;


Just tell us what Title this enforcement statute is under?

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf

[David Merrill]

Cute! Who is the moderator who posted me as Gilligan?

You think that is right? I agree, you all find that very funny but do you actually think that helps the forum any? All I am doing is prodding Wesley, a respected member into making an admission about the truth here - the enforcement statute for the 1040 Form is from Title 27 and therefore the OMB# is only applicable to the PRA if the taxpayer is involved in Alcohol, Tobacco and/or Firearms.

It makes sense though - it just seems a little immature even for you Demosthenes.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

All I am doing is prodding Wesley, a respected member into making an admission about the truth here - the enforcement statute for the 1040 Form is from Title 27 and therefore the OMB# is only applicable to the PRA if the taxpayer is involved in Alcohol, Tobacco and/or Firearms.

Ah. A couple of propositions. Too bad they're wrong.

Proposition I: "the enforcement statute for the 1040 Form is from Title 27".

Answer I: False. As I already posted in this very thread, the statute requiring OMB numbers (to the extent they are required) is from Title 44.

Proposition II: "the OMB# is only applicable to the PRA if the taxpayer is involved in Alcohol, Tobacco and/or Firearms".

Answer II: False, to the extent that the proposition makes any sense - I don't know what "the OMB# is only applicable to the PRA" might mean. If you mean that only ATF activities are required to follow the PRA - well, you've just "proved" that income tax forms need not do so. If you mean that the OMB number for income tax forms is contained in the regulations (please note the difference between regulations and statutes) under Title 27 of the CFR - which I don't know is true - so what? As I previously noted, the statute itself is in Title 44. Does that mean it can only apply to other Title 44 statutes? If so, again, it doesn't apply to the income tax. Anyone who doesn't understand this simply doesn't want to do so.

BTW, David, it was not I who changed your avatar and title - it had to be an admin - but you might consider whether it was warranted. What happened to your $20M lien?

[Joey Smith]

I am the moderator who took the liberty of giving you a rank in the name of promoting liberty.

you all find that very funny

Yes, but I was quite reticent to give you a Gilligan avatar since his simplistic and nonsensical statements make a lot more sense than your usually incoherent ramblings.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I nearly choked on my sandwich when I saw that, Joey.

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

[David Merrill]

I am the moderator who took the liberty of giving you a rank in the name of promoting liberty.

you all find that very funny

Yes, but I was quite reticent to give you a Gilligan avatar since his simplistic and nonsensical statements make a lot more sense than your usually incoherent ramblings.

Jackass.

[Nikki]

I am the moderator who took the liberty of giving you a rank in the name of promoting liberty.

you all find that very funny

Yes, but I was quite reticent to give you a Gilligan avatar since his simplistic and nonsensical statements make a lot more sense than your usually incoherent ramblings.

Jackass.

For the first time in all of his 1,417 posts, David has finally said something that makes sense.

It won't last.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I am the moderator who took the liberty of giving you a rank in the name of promoting liberty.

you all find that very funny

Yes, but I was quite reticent to give you a Gilligan avatar since his simplistic and nonsensical statements make a lot more sense than your usually incoherent ramblings.

Jackass.

Actually the character fits; without Gilligan's consistent bumbling, the castaways would not have been stranded on the island AND would not have remained there for all those months.

As Sherwood Schwartz is said to have explained when proposing the show to CBS, "Every week Gilligan manages to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory."

[The Observer]

Actually the character fits; without Gilligan's consistent bumbling, the castaways would not have been stranded on the island AND would not have remained there for all those months.

As Sherwood Schwartz is said to have explained when proposing the show to CBS, "Every week Gilligan manages to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory."

As one person pointed out, if the castaways had only eaten Gilligan at some point, they would have gotten off the island.

I object to the avatar for David. As I understand the rules, the posters here had the choice, if any, of what avatar they wanted to use. If we start down this road, we are no better than the the people we lambaste for not following the law. Besides, this is personally insulting - to Gilligan.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
I object to the avatar for David. As I understand the rules, the posters here had the choice, if any, of what avatar they wanted to use. If we start down this road, we are no better than the the people we lambaste for not following the law. Besides, this is personally insulting - to Gilligan.

The Court dismisses without prejudice the charge of personal insult; 'Gilligan' is a fiction and even the flesh and blood man who portrayed said fictional character has passed on, ergo the alleged 'personal' insult is a double non sequitur. The assignment of the avatar is upheld.

[Joey Smith]

I think he can change his avatar himself in the user control panel, but if not then he can mail his suggested Avatar to me and I will post it so long as it does not infringe some copyright and is 80x80 or smaller.

[ASITStands]

I object to the avatar for David. As I understand the rules, the posters here had the choice, if any, of what avatar they wanted to use. If we start down this road, we are no better than the the people we lambaste for not following the law. Besides, this is personally insulting - to Gilligan.

For the record, I too object!

It seems to me, it supports the perception that Quatloosians demean those who disagree.

Whether David (or any other poster) resembles Gilligan (or any other caricature) is a matter best left to the posters themselves by their behavior. It's not a moderator's job to decide.

[Demosthenes]

David could change his avatar any time he wants. Since he's chosen not to do so, I'll upload the only photo I've ever seen of David which he posted himself on Sooey a few years ago.

[LPC]

David could change his avatar any time he wants. Since he's chosen not to do so, I'll upload the only photo I've ever seen of David which he posted himself on Sooey a few years ago.

If it were up to me, I'd prefer to be Gilligan, because it would make me look more rational, but there's no accounting for taste.