Anyone know what happend to this guys

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#176

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:00 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:
Just some guy wrote:

Then let us get on the same page.

what is the supreme courts definition of the word income?
To my knowledge, they've never adopted a single definition that is intended to cover all possible circumstances. The Court has been asked to decide whether taxes on specific money streams fall within the limits of the 16th Amendment, and has done so on a case-by-case basis. They've occasionally used definitions in the context of specific cases, such as Eisner, but they've also made it clear that the definitions that have been used were "not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 US 426, 431 (1955).
[T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the [1909] Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA,
255 U.S. 509 (1921)


My reading comprehension is off, what does the bolded part mean?
It means you didn't compare the date of the case you're looking at with the date of the case I cited above.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#177

Post by Northland10 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:04 pm

Just some guy wrote:4. clean water comes from my well, is a natural right, and can not be denied to anyone.
If I ever feel like opening poorly constructed industrial waste dump, now I know where to build it. What you going to do to stop it. Lecture me about your "natural rights?"
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#178

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:26 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:
To my knowledge, they've never adopted a single definition that is intended to cover all possible circumstances. The Court has been asked to decide whether taxes on specific money streams fall within the limits of the 16th Amendment, and has done so on a case-by-case basis. They've occasionally used definitions in the context of specific cases, such as Eisner, but they've also made it clear that the definitions that have been used were "not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 US 426, 431 (1955).
[T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the [1909] Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA,
255 U.S. 509 (1921)


My reading comprehension is off, what does the bolded part mean?
It means you didn't compare the date of the case you're looking at with the date of the case I cited above.
No need to, congress, and the irs can define GROSS income all they want, the definition of the single word INCOME is still the same, be it net income, gross income or whatever.

And it seems, gross income was what this was all about.

"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION.—`Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.)[4]


None of this disputes the supreme courts definition of income.....profit or gain from labor or capital, along with the conversion of assets.

What is GAIN?
Profits; winnings; increment of value. Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 65, 21L. Ed. 45; Thorn v. De Breteuil, SO App. Div. 405, 83 N. Y. Supp. 840.

Profit
Most commonly, the gross proceeds of a business transaction less the costs of the transaction; i.e., net proceeds. Excess of revenues over expenses for a transaction; sometimes used synonymously with net income for the period. Gain realized from business or investment over and above expenditures.


The only way what you are saying works is if you believe that your labor is worth nothing, and you sell it to your employer for 0 thus making everything you take in as a gain or profit.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#179

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:28 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:4. clean water comes from my well, is a natural right, and can not be denied to anyone.
If I ever feel like opening poorly constructed industrial waste dump, now I know where to build it. What you going to do to stop it. Lecture me about your "natural rights?"

Im not that concerned about you being that smart, so im not to worried.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26657
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#180

Post by bob » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:46 pm

Just some guy wrote:Im not that concerned about you being that smart, so im not to worried.
Oh, the irony.

* * *

Dan Evans:
It is true that “income” is not defined by the Constitution, but the Constitution defines very few words. “Freedom of speech,” “due process,” and “equal protection” are all undefined in the Constitution, and yet those provisions are enforced by the courts. Similarly, the courts can determine what is meant by “income” within the 16th Amendment, and have held that “income” has the same meaning as used in everyday speech.
For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1920), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).

So the lack of an express definition of the word “income” income within the Constitution has consistently been held to be a frivolous objection to 16th Amendment. For example:
As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (8) the term “income” as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite....
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

(As an aside, one of the hallmarks of tax protester arguments is that they are “ad hoc” arguments, selectively and inconsistently applied. A tax protester will argue that “incomes” is not defined by the 16th Amendment, which is therefore ineffective, but no tax protester has ever argued that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is ineffective because “direct tax” is not sufficiently defined, because that would mean that all taxes are constitutional whether or not they are apportioned.)
and:
There is some truth to this and, as explained above, the Internal Revenue Code does not define “income.” “Gross income” (which is the beginning point to determine what is “taxable income”) is defined as “income from whatever source derived,” but “income” itself is not defined.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress intended to tax everything within the Constitutional meaning of “income,” and so the Internal Revenue Code taxes “all gains except those specifically exempted.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-431 (1955); Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243, 246 (1956).

The problem with this argument is not that there are limits on the Congressional power to define “income,” but that tax protesters cannot convince any court that their wages (or other incomes) are not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.
But (any day now!) JSG will prove them all wrong.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#181

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:20 pm

bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Im not that concerned about you being that smart, so im not to worried.
Oh, the irony.

* * *

Dan Evans:
It is true that “income” is not defined by the Constitution, but the Constitution defines very few words. “Freedom of speech,” “due process,” and “equal protection” are all undefined in the Constitution, and yet those provisions are enforced by the courts. Similarly, the courts can determine what is meant by “income” within the 16th Amendment, and have held that “income” has the same meaning as used in everyday speech.
For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1920), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).

So the lack of an express definition of the word “income” income within the Constitution has consistently been held to be a frivolous objection to 16th Amendment. For example:
As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (8) the term “income” as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite....
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

(As an aside, one of the hallmarks of tax protester arguments is that they are “ad hoc” arguments, selectively and inconsistently applied. A tax protester will argue that “incomes” is not defined by the 16th Amendment, which is therefore ineffective, but no tax protester has ever argued that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is ineffective because “direct tax” is not sufficiently defined, because that would mean that all taxes are constitutional whether or not they are apportioned.)
and:
There is some truth to this and, as explained above, the Internal Revenue Code does not define “income.” “Gross income” (which is the beginning point to determine what is “taxable income”) is defined as “income from whatever source derived,” but “income” itself is not defined.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress intended to tax everything within the Constitutional meaning of “income,” and so the Internal Revenue Code taxes “all gains except those specifically exempted.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-431 (1955); Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243, 246 (1956).

The problem with this argument is not that there are limits on the Congressional power to define “income,” but that tax protesters cannot convince any court that their wages (or other incomes) are not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.
But (any day now!) JSG will prove them all wrong.
Is it not ironic that what you just posted agrees with me. I bolded it for those of you that are slow.

Oh BTW what defense did Cryer use again?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26657
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#182

Post by bob » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:30 pm

Just some guy wrote:Is it not ironic that what you just posted agrees with me.
And it isn't ironic that you ignored all the parts explaining why your highly selective reading has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. And it isn't ironic that you prefer to hide in the comfort of your basement rather than going to court and showing that everyone else is wrong.
Oh BTW what defense did Cryer use again?
You tell us, "counselor."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#183

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:31 pm

Oh oh I know.

He said he did not make any income. Strange that a lawyer who can read the law. And me, who you folks say can't read the law, can come to the same conclusion. Don't you think?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26657
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#184

Post by bob » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:32 pm

Just some guy wrote:He said he did not make any income.
Did he now? When, where; citations, please.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#185

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:32 pm

bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Is it not ironic that what you just posted agrees with me.
And it isn't ironic that you ignored all the parts explaining why your highly selective reading has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. And it isn't ironic that you prefer to hide in the comfort of your basement rather than going to court and showing that everyone else is wrong.
Oh BTW what defense did Cryer use again?
You tell us, "counselor."
Quote which part that disputes that income is a gain or profit from capital or labor please.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#186

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:33 pm

bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:He said he did not make any income.
Did he now? When, where; citations, please.
Its called google

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#187

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:37 pm

Just some guy wrote:
bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:He said he did not make any income.
Did he now? When, where; citations, please.
Its called google
:bwaha:
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26657
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#188

Post by bob » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:39 pm

Just some guy wrote:
bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:He said he did not make any income.
Did he now? When, where; citations, please.
Its called google
In other words, you got nothing.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26657
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#189

Post by bob » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:44 pm

Just some guy wrote:Quote which part that disputes that income is a gain or profit from capital or labor please.
I guess you missed the part about where no tax protestor has ever convinced a court that wages are not income. And also the part where many tax protesters have been sanctioned for unsuccessfully attempting to do so.

But -- any day now! -- you'll show 'em all.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#190

Post by Plutodog » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:45 pm

This mouse is a constant pleasure to bat around, no?

Image
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26657
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#191

Post by bob » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:04 pm

Plutodog wrote:This mouse is a constant pleasure to bat around, no?
I'll give him this: he may be as pig-headedly wrong as Apuzzo, but at least he's more succient.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#192

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:08 pm

bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
bob wrote: Did he now? When, where; citations, please.
Its called google
In other words, you got nothing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... dFjWQbKhRg

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#193

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:12 pm

Acting like you never heard of this case. That's ironic.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... prote.html

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#194

Post by Suranis » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:16 pm

I don't believe it. We actually got him to do some work for a change. Imaging the calories it too him to type in a google search. Imaging the agony of the synapses that were used to do something other than press ctrl + v.So what was the google search for, Marshmellows?

Its sad that his pathetic attempt to get people to actually look at his cobweb infested facebook page failed, but what you gotta do.

By the way, dont actual laywer use PACER, or is that too much professionalism and money for a fine intellect.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#195

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:17 pm

bob wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Quote which part that disputes that income is a gain or profit from capital or labor please.
I guess you missed the part about where no tax protestor has ever convinced a court that wages are not income. And also the part where many tax protesters have been sanctioned for unsuccessfully attempting to do so.

But -- any day now! -- you'll show 'em all.


Correct as it was a lawyer and not a tax protester that did not pay taxes for ten years.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#196

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:18 pm

Suranis wrote:I don't believe it. We actually got him to do some work for a change. Imaging the calories it too him to type in a google search. Imaging the agony of the synapses that were used to do something other than press ctrl + v.So what was the google search for, Marshmellows?

Its sad that his pathetic attempt to get people to actually look at his cobweb infested facebook page failed, but what you gotta do.

By the way, dont actual laywer use PACER, or is that too much professionalism and money for a fine intellect.

Oh I'm sorry. Have I given you the butthurt now?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#197

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:20 pm

Suranis wrote:I don't believe it. We actually got him to do some work for a change. Imaging the calories it too him to type in a google search. Imaging the agony of the synapses that were used to do something other than press ctrl + v.So what was the google search for, Marshmellows?

Its sad that his pathetic attempt to get people to actually look at his cobweb infested facebook page failed, but what you gotta do.

By the way, dont actual laywer use PACER, or is that too much professionalism and money for a fine intellect.

I started it like a month ago and its at 250 and growing daily.

I even called out LB and bitch slapped him on it.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#198

Post by Suranis » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:28 pm

Just some guy wrote:I started it like a month ago and its at 250 and growing daily.

I even called out LB and bitch slapped him on it.
What, views? Becasue it sure as hell isn't the cost for PACER you are talking about. (Oh and I still didnt look at it :mrgreen: )

And I'm sure "LB" is really concerned that he has been "slapped" on random idiots facebook page. Your courage is just tremendous. The risks you take for fweedom.
Just some guy wrote:Oh I'm sorry. Have I given you the butthurt now?
I'm sorry can you give me the legal definition of butthurt? Maybe gewgle can help?
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#199

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:41 pm

Suranis wrote:
Just some guy wrote:I started it like a month ago and its at 250 and growing daily.

I even called out LB and bitch slapped him on it.
What, views? Becasue it sure as hell isn't the cost for PACER you are talking about. (Oh and I still didnt look at it :mrgreen: )

And I'm sure "LB" is really concerned that he has been "slapped" on random idiots facebook page. Your courage is just tremendous. The risks you take for fweedom.
Just some guy wrote:Oh I'm sorry. Have I given you the butthurt now?
I'm sorry can you give me the legal definition of butthurt? Maybe gewgle can help?
Members dipshit. Its a group. But I don't think definitions can help you.

Actually I called him out on just about every patriot group him or his merry followers are on. He just chose to confront me if you could call it that on my page.

And what's ironic is that 99% of the time I think you guys are right on every single one of these folks.

Which is why I am still a citizen who pays Hus taxes, don't live in a basement, etc.

However I still have questions and maybe always will. Pushing thru with the herd is not my strongest point, nor should it be anyone's. But alas it is.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#200

Post by Just some guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:53 pm

Shit like this

http://www.inquisitr.com/3759882/what-i ... mes-video/

Drives people to want to know where the governments power comes from.

Of course you won't hear about this case on the news.

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”