David the Non Taxpayer?

[AndyK]

AndyK, of course he, plaintiff, Economy lost. He tried to claim status of "taxpayer" when in fact he was not.
Then why did you bring it up? Just something that was referenced on some tax denire web siste?
With regard to 7436 (a) (1) in part,,, '(other than the person against whom is assessed the tax out of which such levy arose)', to escape suit, the bank would have to prove the levy was lawful, that in fact, I was subject to some tax statute, and to that , somebody has to show the law as fact and be examined.
Wrong, wronger, wrongest. The bank is immune from suit for complying with an IRS levy. 26USC contains specific language for that. You -- the person against whom the levy was imposed -- have absolutely no recourse against the bank. The only ways to recover the funds are (a) following IRS administrative procedures, (b) petitioning Tax Court aznd winning your case or (c) paying the tax and then filing a suit for refund.

If you look at every single tax statute that has been upheld, I found each law was directed with regard to a specific privilege (doing business in a 'corporate' capacity), doing business under a specific license ( insurance co.'s) committing a specific act with or without license (distilling spirits), what do you see?
If you are referring to specific taxes OTHER than the income tax, yes some of them relate to a privilege or license. However, EVERY challenge to the income tax related to privilege has crashed and burned.


I see 26 USC 1 (c) mentions no specific business, trade, profession, anything. If the words aren't there, they won't be considered. Yes, as far as I can tell, 1 (c) is within the limits of the Const., it just doesn't do anything, what business, trade, profession, privilege, even death (Knowlton v Moore).
Again, 26USC does not need to mention "specific business, trade, profession, anything" with respect to INCOME. Is there some part of 'all income from whatever source' that you can't comprehend?

David
ps, Andy, take a breath, your spelling used to be better. dk

David, face it. You are playing here with people who have a GREAT deal more knowledge and experience that you do. Some of us spent our entire careers working for the IRS in one capacity or another. Some of us were intimately involved with writing the laws and regulations which are under discussion. Some of us have spent their entire careers litigating against the IRS.

You, on the other hand, didn't even spend last night in a Holiday Inn. You are researching from thoroughly debunked tax protester web sites and cutting-and-pasting without comprehending what is in front of you.

Finally, the above 'playing' relates to your activities here. Once the IRS decides you are actually significant enough to go after, it stops being a game. Based on everything you have posted here, you won't last a second against an IRS Agent or Officer. You'd be extremely lucky to escape without some significant financial penalties for frivolous arguments or filings.

But, if you wish to continue this game, go right ahead. The only reason people here are responding to your inane posts is that others visit here and we can't leave such insanity unrebutted.

[Famspear]

...I LOVE Famspear's statement: "We are not here to tell you what the law is. We are here to teach the law."

No. That is not the statement I made.

David, when you make a claim that you're quoting someone else -- by putting something in quotation marks, you need to be precise. I never said that we are "not here to tell you what the law is." This is what I wrote:

We're not here to persuade you about what the law is.

We are here to teach the law. We are explaining the law to you, which means that we are explaining what will actually happen if you were to try to present your nonsense arguments in a court of law.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9789&start=60

In your version of the "quote," you deleted a word I used: the word "persuade." You replaced the word "persuade" with the word "tell."

As at least one other person has noted, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Now, it appears that you also have a problem with providing accurate quotes of what you have read.

[Famspear]

David wrote:

If you look at every single tax statute that has been upheld, I found each law was directed with regard to a specific privilege (doing business in a 'corporate' capacity), doing business under a specific license ( insurance co.'s) committing a specific act with or without license (distilling spirits), what do you see?

David, that's utter nonsense. There are literally hundreds of court decisions where the federal income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code was upheld in cases involving individuals (section 1 of 26 USC) and the court in each case in no way ruled that the decision against the individual was tied to some sort of "privilege" or a "license" or any specific act with or without a license.

In United States v. Buras, the argument that the taxpayer can be subject to an excise tax (specifically, the federal income tax) only if he benefits from a "privilege" was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980).

See also Nichols v. United States, 575 F.Supp. 320 (D. Minn. 1983).

See also Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9208 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).

See also Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

See also May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985).

See also Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986).

See also Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

See also Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986).

No federal court has ever ruled that imposition of the federal income tax under 26 USC section 1 is tied to the exercise of a "privilege" or to any kind of "license."

EDIT: David, in each of the cases I listed above, the individual argued that he or she was not liable for the U.S. federal income tax because he or she had not exercised some sort of privilege or had not availed himself or herself of a privilege. In each case, the court rejected the argument that the federal income tax is somehow tied to a privilege, and ruled that the individual was liable for the tax.

[JamesVincent]

No federal court has ever ruled that imposition of the federal income tax under 26 USC section 1 is tied to the exercise of a "privilege" or to any kind of "license."

That whole pesky "whatever source" thingy again.

[Pottapaug1938]

Given the way that tax deniers seem to twist the "whatever source" language into some sort of mandate that the source of income be determined before the income might be able to be taxed, I think that it's better to say not "whatever source" but "any source, no matter what that may be."

Of course, the tax deniers have such a fervent need to believe that the income tax is unconstitutional that they will grasp at any straw, no matter how fragile, in a desperate attempt to save themselves from the tax which most Americans pay peacefully, if not willingly....

[AndyK]

Given the way that tax deniers seem to twist the "whatever source" language into some sort of mandate that the source of income be determined before the income might be able to be taxed, I think that it's better to say not "whatever source" but "any source,no matter what that may be."

Of course, the tax deniers have such a fervent need to believe that the income tax is unconstitutional that they will grasp at any straw, no matter how fragile, in a desperate attempt to save themselves from the tax which most Americans pay peacefully, if not willingly....

Whatever Straw ???

[Quixote]

If you look at every single tax statute that has been upheld, I found each law was directed with regard to a specific privilege ...

Except 26 USC 1, which taxes income from whatever source derived. As you have noted, "26 USC 1 (c) mentions no specific business, trade, profession, anything."

[david]

After studying all the cases I could find you excellent teachers cited, after restudying all the cases I, your humble student, cited, plus a few side tracks, I have come to the following conclusions:
1] Men are fact, government is fiction.
2] Government exists at the pleasure of men.
3] Men do not exist at the pleasure of government.
4] Men can bleed, recorded documents with four corners define government.
5] Men claimed the right to establish a government to govern themselves by creating a document with four corners and publishing it. (Declaration of Independence)
6] Government was created by men through the creation of a recorded and published document with four corners which defines the men creating government and the responsibilitys and limits of government and its employees to assist in the protection of each man's rights and accumulations of that which he claims to control. (Constitutions of the various States and later United States)
7] For the continued existence of both men and government, it is the right and responsibility of each to accumulate, from that which each claims to control, the substance which each requires to support itself.
8] Man is entitled by natural right to enjoy that which he controls by actions or recorded documents with four corners.
9] Men entitled government, by a document with four corners, to enjoy that which it controls, as defined within documents with four corners men signed their names on. (US Const.,Titles, Licenses, and Privileges)
10] Government may tax men and specific THINGS men control according to census or numeration and apportioned among the states.
11] Government may tax specific ACTs of men government controls, defined within documents, according to it's happenings uniformly.
12] Government may tax both men and accumulated property. That accumulation includes physical things defined by recorded documents PLUS recorded permissions, defined and limited by document, created by government to permit men to engage in particular acts.
13] Government may reach accumulated property by reference to the information contained within a document required by law to exist and be recorded. (Titles)
14] Government may reach the acts of permissions defined on a document required by law to exist and be recorded. (Licenses and privileges)
15] There are two forms of permissions.
a) One form of permission arises under the police power of government to regulate particular rights of men because of past abuses. (Licenses)
b) The other form of permission arises under the creation power of government to permit men wishing to form various associations of men to act as single persons and seeking immunity from individual personal liability from the consequences of actions of the single person each man is a part of. (Privileges)
16] I have not applied to the US Gov. for any license required under its police power which requires me to maintain any records or file any returns with regard to any act.
17] I have not applied to the US Gov. for any privilege required under its permission power which requires me to maintain any records or file any returns with regard to any act.
18] My person, the US Gov. may tax.
19]What titled property I control, the US Gov. may tax.
20] What profit I might derive from engaging in any activities under authority of any licenses or permissions I possess, the US Gov. may tax.
21] IF I held a license issued by the US or a State to pursue the same occupations as those defined in 36 Stat. 11, 112, c, 6, sec. 38 examined in Flint, IN MY OWN NAME, that Stat. would not have reached me.
22] I am a registered voter.
23] A bank issues me regular statements concerning the flow and balance of my deposits of money.
24] I hold titles to various forms of property.
25] I hold 3 distinct recorded licenses required by state and municipal law which recognize my right to engage in specific regulated occupations intended for profit.
26] Government exists because of specifics found on a recorded and published document. ( 6] above ).
27] Government acts according to specific means with regard to specific subjects defined within documents. ( 9 above )
28] If government intends to act according to a specific document which leaves the specific act and specific subject acted upon to ones imagination, it is merely Homer Simpson sitting there,,, blinking,,, waiting,,, for someone else to "figure it out".
29] I am unable to satisfy Homer Simpson's anticipations or desires, he has specified none.
30] The US Congress has chosen not to also.
31] 26 USC 1 (c) has not specified any specific subject or act.
32] No specific US Law with regard to my property or activity reaches me.
33] That is why an IRS agent returned that letter above saying " You're right' thanks' by-by". (1st page of this topic)
34] Those of you who think I am trying to protect and defend my pocket are wrong.
35] My intent is to protect and defend the principle of the US Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
And, yes,,, I am David the Non-taxpayer.

[Quixote]

31] 26 USC 1 (c) has not specified any specific subject ...

26 USC 1 specifically taxes "taxable income". Nothing else in your post is relevant to the question at hand.

I wanted to post about tri-cornered hats, five sided buildings and six pointed stars, but I'll restrain myself.

[AndyK]

David, perhaps you might try to read viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9817

It does contain some big words, but, if you ask, someone will explain to you how it again, shows YOU ARE WRONG.

[david]

AndyK, I included Economy to show that courts do in fact make a distinction between 'tax payer' and 'non-taxpayer'. That statutory definition is found in Economy and several cited cases within its body.
If the IRS levy does not hold water by determining that I am in fact subject to 26 usc 1 (c), then what? Wouldn't charges of fraud and theft against the bank encourage the bank to produce a document determining in fact I am subject to 1 (c). The bank would have to produce the IRS agent that produced the document for examination to escape liability I think.
I am referring to all income tax laws examined in courts. All of the cases cited to me by the participants here seem to fail to note that the individual in question allowed the court to assume he was in some way subject to 1 (c) by failing to force government to prove it. I can't prove something does not exist and courts do recognize that by shifting the burden of proof to the one claiming a fact.
I think the term "source" relates to property held and it has been determined that taxes assessed on the potatoes, rents, royalties, anything arising from that property must also be subject to numeration and apportionment. If you look at that law examined in 'Flint', I think you will find that the income derived from stocks held of other outfits was exempted, 'source'.
I am researching from this site and this site alone. The only other sites I've visited have been 'Google Scholar', Google' for a statute, Jayskies occasionally for my NASCAR fix, and my mail, no surfing. I didn't know that Quatloos was a "thoroughly debunked tax protester web sites". That's your quote I copied and pasted. And by the way, if you think I'm "playing" with the participants on this site, you could not be further from the truth. You are invaluable to me, highly cherished, and respected by me. I really appreciate your participation. I questioned my beliefs, you don't question yours.
By the way, please direct me to one case where gov. had to produce and prove the law, all the cases the participants here mentioned didn't.
Thanks for your help, keep it coming please.
david

[Paths of the Sea]

David's latest banter reminds me of the following excerpts from the Nix case that was recently featured here in another thread:

--------------------------------------------

In relevant part, section 1 of the Code provides for
the imposition of an income tax on all "taxable
income," 26 U.S.C. section 1, which is defined as
"gross income" minus the deductions that the
chapter allows.

In this case, Mr. Nix was not excluded from federal
income tax liability.

He...was responsible for federal income taxes
under section 1 of the Code.

Mr. Nix's statutory interpretation arguments to
the contrary are unavailing.

--------------------------------------------

[david]

Famspear, I apologize that I may have made that mistake. The part most important to me was "We are here to teach the law.". I thought you were giving me an opportunity to examine where you got your opinion, formulate my own, and then we discuss the differences. Some of your descriptive words I didn't take personally. I just thought they were an effort to get me to look harder. And I promise I'll try to copy and paste quotes on this site better.
With regard to your next reply, " United States v. Buras", I'm assuming you mean the truck driver. He blew it right off the bat by signing W-4 forms. He allowed the court to assume he was subject to some tax statute. He did NOT bring any question of "What law" or "Where" that any IRS agent had to produce to be examined within it's 4 corners. Ding-dong, the trucker is done. That allowed to court to say anything it wanted.
With regard to "Nichols", plaintiff filed 1040's. He's done like the trucker. He did not place the burden of proof on the defendant (US) to show it's authority to do anything with him, how the IRS gained jurisdiction over him. Same with the Lovells, Olson, can't get to "May", I only have Google Scholar, what is "Coleman" doing filing in Tax Court unless he is conceding he is subject to some tax law? After rescinding my signature and not filing any documents I'm not required to file, I would certainly say what I did in my letter posted by grixit and a US District Court would get to examine whatever the IRS agent produced claiming it made me subject to or liable for the tax he claims I owe. Sullivan filed forms just like 1040's and such but never got 26 usc, part supposedly applicable to him brought forward as fact to be examined. Kelly's referred to "income tax" and used what you might call "frivolous arguments", I would.
What's the theme here? "No federal court has ever ruled that imposition of the federal income tax under 26 USC section 1 is tied to the exercise of a "privilege" or to any kind of "license."". Did I copy that right? Anyway, you are 100% correct. Because,,,,,,,,it has never been presented as 'fact' open to examination. Maybe it's my turn? With regard to your edit, 27CFR c. 1 deals with needing a license which places a person under jurisdiction of 26 USC 5001. Where's my CFR that puts me under the jurisdiction of 26 USC 1 (c)? Maybe jurisdiction might not be the right word, can you help me with that? In all the cases you referred to, not one individual asked for that. Movies or life, I don't know, BUT that guy Arron Ruso reported asked for the law, the jury asked for the law, none was produced, What can I say? No law=no liability.
I could be wrong. david

[JamesVincent]

Even I, as a non tax type, could go through and answer every single point made. But I cannot figure out that many ways of saying stupid differently.

[Pottapaug1938]

David, since you are evidently incapable of learning the truth about income taxation, and are under the delusion that your meanderings through the law have ANY legal weight whatsoever, after repeatedly been told that they don't, I will make no further attempts to educate you. There are only two outcomes for you: either your income is so low that the IRS doesn't consider you worth prosecuting, or you will get a very expensive and unpleasant lesson in what the law really DOES mean when you are standing before a judge in the Moakley Courthouse.

I'll wave to you from the Savin Hill bridge as you go by on your way to court....

[Famspear]

.....With regard to your next reply, " United States v. Buras", I'm assuming you mean the truck driver. He blew it right off the bat by signing W-4 forms. He allowed the court to assume he was subject to some tax statute. He did NOT bring any question of "What law" or "Where" that any IRS agent had to produce to be examined within it's [sic] 4 corners. Ding-dong, the trucker is done. That allowed to court to say anything it wanted.

That's complete, utter nonsense, David. Signing W-4 forms does not "allow the court to assume you are subject to some tax statute." You people are hung up on this nonsense about an individual "doing" or "not doing" something that somehow "allows" the court to "say anything it wanted." That's nonsense. You are subject to the tax statutes because Congress wrote the statutes in a way that makes you subject to them.

With regard to "Nichols", plaintiff filed 1040's. He's done like the trucker. He did not place the burden of proof on the defendant (US) to show it's [sic] authority to do anything with him, how the IRS gained jurisdiction over him.

David, your argument is completely idiotic. The IRS is not a court of law. The IRS doesn't need to "gain jurisdiction" over an individual. Individuals are subject to the federal tax law regardless of what those individuals do -- or do not do -- to place a "burden of proof" on the defendant.

Same with the Lovells, Olson, can't get to "May"...

Oh, you're making the same goofy arguments about those cases, too? Well, then the answer is the same: You don't know what you're talking about.

....what is "Coleman" doing filing in Tax Court unless he is conceding he is subject to some tax law?

Conceding or not conceding that you are subject to some tax law does not make you subject to that law -- or not subject to that law. David, you people are hung up on this nonsense that somehow your doing something or saying something or not doing something or not saying something makes you subject to the tax law or makes you not subject to the law.

You are subject to the law because Congress wrote the law in such a way that you are subject to the law. It's not a question of something you do or do not do.

After rescinding my signature and not filing any documents I'm not required to file, I would certainly say what I did in my letter posted by grixit and a US District Court would get to examine whatever the IRS agent produced claiming it made me subject to or liable for the tax he claims I owe.

And you would certainly fail in whaat you are trying to do. I've already explained to you, David, that there is no such thing as "rescinding" your signature and having that act result in some magical legal effect with respect to your federal income tax liability.

Sullivan filed forms just like 1040's and such but never got 26 usc, part supposedly applicable to him brought forward as fact to be examined. Kelly's referred to "income tax" and used what you might call "frivolous arguments", I would.

That's gibberish.

What's the theme here? "No federal court has ever ruled that imposition of the federal income tax under 26 USC section 1 is tied to the exercise of a "privilege" or to any kind of "license."". Did I copy that right? Anyway, you are 100% correct. Because,,,,,,,,it has never been presented as 'fact' open to examination.

Wrong. In each of the cases cited, the individual SPECIFICALLY asserted that the federal income tax law (which includes 26 USC section 1, the provision that imposes the tax on "taxable income") was tied to the exercise of a PRIVILEGE. In each case, the court actually mentioned the point that the individual had made that argument.

And, whether the federal income tax is tied to the exercise of a privilege is a question of LAW, not a question of "fact." In each case, the court examined the individual's argument that the tax was tied to the exercise of a "privilege" (that's the term the courts used), and the COURT REJECTED THE INDIVIDUAL'S ARGUMENT IN EACH CASE.

You are completely wrong.

Maybe it's my turn? With regard to your edit, 27CFR c. 1 deals with needing a license which places a person under jurisdiction of 26 USC 5001. Where's my CFR that puts me under the jurisdiction of 26 USC 1 (c)?

Again, "CFR" is the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. And 26 USC 1 is a STATUTE. There is no such thing as a "CFR" provision that somehow puts you "under the jurisdiction" of a statute.

Maybe jurisdiction might not be the right word, can you help me with that?

That's right: "jurisdiction" is not the right word.

In all the cases you referred to, not one individual asked for that.

Asked for what? Asked the court for jurisdiction? David, stop worrying about "jurisdiction." You don't even understand the concept well enough to be trying to wrestle with it.

Movies or life, I don't know, BUT that guy Arron Ruso reported asked for the law, the jury asked for the law, none was produced, What can I say? No law=no liability.
I could be wrong. david

Well, you can say that, but you're wrong.

In all court cases, the jury is given the law by the judge, in what is called the instruction to the jury. In every court case cited by Aaron Russo, the jury was given the law. You are completely wrong, and Aaron Russo was completely wrong.

[Famspear]

.....I included Economy to show that courts do in fact make a distinction between 'tax payer' and 'non-taxpayer'. That statutory definition is found in Economy and several cited cases within its body.

Thanks, but we didn't need you to do that. Tax protesters have been citing the Economy case since at least the past eight years. It's old news. The case doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and this has already been explained to you by another poster here.

If the IRS levy does not hold water by determining that I am in fact subject to 26 usc 1 (c), then what? Wouldn't charges of fraud and theft against the bank encourage the bank to produce a document determining in fact I am subject to 1 (c). The bank would have to produce the IRS agent that produced the document for examination to escape liability I think.

You would be wrong. First, the IRS levy does not have to "determine" that you are subject to the federal income tax law. An IRS levy is a seizure of property.

No, if you charge the bank with fraud and theft, the bank's lawyers will ask the court to throw your case out, and the court will indeed throw your case out. No, the bank would not have to "produce the IRS agent" that produced the document in order for the bank to "escape liability." The bank doesn't need to do that. Why? Because under the law, a bank has NO LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON for complying with an IRS levy. 26 USC section 6332(e).

I am referring to all income tax laws examined in courts. All of the cases cited to me by the participants here seem to fail to note that the individual in question allowed the court to assume he was in some way subject to 1 (c) by failing to force government to prove it.

The courts don't need to "note that the individual in question allowed the court to assume that the individual was subject to the law."

I can't prove something does not exist and courts do recognize that by shifting the burden of proof to the one claiming a fact.

And whether you are subject to the law is not a question of "fact." It's a question of law. Again, you're thrashing around, metaphorically speaking, with legal concepts that you don't understand.

I think the term "source" relates to property held and it has been determined that taxes assessed on the potatoes, rents, royalties, anything arising from that property must also be subject to numeration and apportionment. If you look at that law examined in 'Flint', I think you will find that the income derived from stocks held of other outfits was exempted, 'source'.
I am researching from this site and this site alone. The only other sites I've visited have been 'Google Scholar', Google' for a statute, Jayskies occasionally for my NASCAR fix, and my mail, no surfing. I didn't know that Quatloos was a "thoroughly debunked tax protester web sites". That's your quote I copied and pasted. And by the way, if you think I'm "playing" with the participants on this site, you could not be further from the truth. You are invaluable to me, highly cherished, and respected by me. I really appreciate your participation. I questioned my beliefs, you don't question yours.

This is not about my "beliefs." This is about WHAT THE LAW IS.

By the way, please direct me to one case where gov. had to produce and prove the law, all the cases the participants here mentioned didn't.

The government does not have to "prove" the law in the sense in which you're thinking. The government attorneys know what the law is. And the JUDGE in each case knows what the law is (or, if the judge makes a mistake about what the law is, the judge's decision can be reversed by a higher court).

The texts of court decisions -- the stuff you read on the internet -- do not have to include verbiage that shows that the government had to "produce and prove the law." The texts include EXPLANATIONS of the law, with citations to statutes, case law, and so on. You don't know how to analyze legal materials, David, and that's why you're asking these kinds of questions.

Mentally, you are "fighting" what you are reading in these court cases. You're trying to set up your own set of imaginary rules about how you think laws and courts should operate. You're not doing proper legal analysis.

Many of your errors have been explained to you in this and other threads, but like many other tax protesters, you seem to be unwilling to stop making the same errors again.

[Duke2Earl]

Many of your errors have been explained to you in this and other threads, but like many other tax protesters, you seem to be unwilling to stop making the same errors again.

Actually, the errors do not really stem from reading statutes or cases. It is far more basic than that. Error number 1 is the unshakable belief that is simply isn't fair for them to be taxed so therefore it couldn't possibly be true. (Totally ignoring the actual fact that every government for thousands of years has taxed its citizens). Error number 2 is the unshakable belief that they have the right or power to decide how the law applies to them individually and that their "analysis" is at least as valid as the courts. Once these two fundamental errors are in place, all the rest is inevitable.

[Pottapaug1938]

On the Daily Kos web site, you can find a review of Charles P. Pierce's book "Idiot America"; and it is from that site which I extract the following paragraph, which to me seems to fit David to a T:

"Once you're on television, you are speaking to the Gut, and the Gut is a moron...The Gut...knows what it wants because it knows how it feels...."

"The Gut is as destructive to the value of the American crank as television is. While television undermines the crank by making the crank instantly respectable, the Gut destroys him by forcing him into the procrustean bed of commercial salesmanship.... The Gut changes the equation by adding the possibility that the crank can be part of the mainstream without affecting any change in it....The crank then becomes simply someone with another product to sell within the unimaginative parameters of the marketplace; his views are just another impulse buy, like the potato chips near the cash register."

"The Gut becomes the basis for the Three Great Premises of Idiot America:

1. Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.
2. Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough.
3. Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."

David's fantasies come from many people who loudly and fervently proclaim their idiocies; and they either reap profits by doing so, or attract attention from acolytes such that more and more people notice them. David shares their fervor intensely; therefore, his fervor translates into a validationof the truth of his beliefs.

He also buys into the American tradition of fair play, which in instances like these is twisted into the premise that, if different people have different opinions on a certain matter, they are entitled to equal weight and equal respect. For people like David, trying to suppress "contrary" opinions by saying that "the facts and law don't support that" is elitist and thus to be shunned. No matter how unsupported, in fact or law, a legal premise might be, it is entitled to a full consideration of its merits in court; and if that does not happen, this is evidence that the established powers are afraid of the "true" nature of the law and peoples' rights, and don't want the word to get out since that will destroy their oppressive power over the common people.

[david]

Where's mine? Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons or certain activities. That pretty much covers it.
I was originally going to refer to the tax law examined in Flint. I thought that law was a good example of an all-in-one law encompassing everything a tax law needed to display, including jurisdiction of the persons defined and relief for an individual not defined engaged in the same business taxed. Considering the current condition of laws seemingly scattered everywhere, I hunted where my previous searchs ended, not realizing earlier there might be more.
In the current time, first a person (includes individual) must knowingly apply for a license or permit to engage in an activity which is otherwise prohibited before that person can be taxed. That search produced: "
Title 27 (USC)› Chapter 8 › Subchapter I › § 203 " (b) It shall be unlawful, except pursuant to a basic permit issued under this subchapter by the Secretary of the Treasury—
(1) to engage in the business of distilling distilled spirits, producing wine, rectifying or blending distilled spirits or wine, or bottling, or warehousing and bottling, distilled spirits;...", (explanation added)
and
27 CFR 1, sub-part C, sec. 1.21 (a) : "No person, except pursuant to a basic permit issued under the Act, shall:
(a) Engage in the business of distilling distilled spirits, producing wine, rectifying or blending distilled spirits or wine, or bottling, or warehousing and bottling, distilled spirits; ... ".
Please note, it appears that if I operate a distillery for my own pleasure, not for business purposes, I would not be within the jurisdiction of the US Gov. and 26 USC below would not apply to me.
26 USC 5001 through 5011 defines what is taxed, distilled spirits, and all proceedure computing the tax.
With 27 USC, 27 CFR, and 26 USC 5001 above in mind, it seem complete, it brings an act within the jurisdiction of gov. and then taxes it. The jurisdiction or control can survive without the tax, the tax can not survive without the jurisdiction or control. What or where are similar USCs and/or CFRs related to 26 USC 1 (c) which brings me within the jurisdiction of the US Gov. with regard to my income? Gov. has the authority to bring me within it's jurisdiction. Gov. has the authority to tax me, after it brings me within it's jurisdiction. As far as I can find, Gov. has chosen NOT to bring me within it's control. If you can find one, please refer me to it. With regard to Gov. and it's laws, if it is not written and recorded, it does not exist. If you think gov. does not have to bring me within it's jurisdiction before it taxes us individually, let me know. Arron's jury thought it did even though the court would neither confirm or deny such a law exists.
david