There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

[Sonny Tufts]

Mr. Evans’ “analysis” on the matter presently held in debate is itself a fallacy fulfillment of inaccuracy. His “Tax Protester FAQ” is a contrivance of warped reckoning.

Mr. White, you continue to fail to cite any inaccuracies on Mr. Evans' site. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.

4. Presuming that the federal income tax was intended to tax the source as well as its growth, then it is still an unconstitutional method of taxation, as even though apportionment be not required, the requirement for exigent circumstances is withstanding under such a direct form of taxation upon such sources, aside from the indirect taxing of the source’s growth.

The Constitution doesn't require "exigent circumstances". Really, you should take time to actually read the language of the Constitution instead of trying to insert into it stuff that isn't there.

[Weston White]

What you mean is that you read into the statute whatever language is necessary to support your preconceived anti-tax position.

1. No, that is not it at all, one need only to read the respective statutes, while you -a Mr. Skull & Bones wannabe- seem to be wanting a header entitled “Taxable Privileges” or something to that effect. That is simply not the case nor is it a necessity, as the taxable activities and such other privileges have been encoded within the federal income tax statutes, be they inclusive to such specifically enumerated/numerated items or not.
2. I am not “anti-tax”, I am hole-heartedly truth-in-taxation. I do not believe the IRS or the XVI Amendment, etc. need be abolished; only that employees of the IRS be mandated and personally held accountable through an empowered external oversight committee (that the public could readily file complaints with from within their regional service areas) to serve their public honestly, forthright, and with the upmost respect, while becomingly properly trained, and the XVI be enforced properly within its lawful scope. Because at this point in time none of the above is the case, e.g., IRS employees have zero knowledge about their agencies own regulatory procedures, don’t adhere to their own “Taxpayer Bill of Rights I/II” whatsoever, and aside from code processing under AMIS, IMF, etc., could care less what their own IRM states as to the fair, impartial, and unbiased treatment of individuals filing submissions with their myriad of offices.

You are incorrect. The tax base is called "taxable income".

Wrong, the starting point is in fact ‘gross income’, it is that ‘gross income’ less one’s ‘adjusted gross income’ that determines their ‘taxable income’; originally this process was simplified under ‘net income’.

Income taxes are not direct taxes; they are excises. The only case that has ever held that an income tax was a direct tax was the 1895 Pollock case, and even there the Supreme Court limited its holding to investment income. Taxes on wages and personal earnings have never been held to be direct taxes. In any event the 16th Amendment did away with the apportionment requirement for all income taxes.

1. Excises are not taxes upon individual right or necessity, but upon privilege and benefit, as public charges sought through powers of internal taxation. Neither, never have excise taxes been intended to impose tax upon livelihoods, laboring, subsistence earning, or any semblance thereof.
2. In England (from whence our entire legal system is based from) income taxes were understood to be a direct form of taxation.
3. Concerning Pollock you are being very dishonest, for the court had clarified that a tax levied upon real estate, or rents or incomes deriving from real estate, or upon personal property, or incomes deriving from personal property, were likewise ‘direct taxes’; thereby requiring apportionment.
4. It is quite clear that you hold neither any regard nor consideration as to the relational aspects between the source of the taxable activity (itself) and its taxable emanation, i.e., seeking to tax the “shadow” is indifferent than taxing the “source” from where it had derived, that is until that shadow has itself been severed from the source (by realizing its own increment in value through a bona fide ‘gain’ or ‘profit’).
5. No matter how you slice it, mince it, or dice it, or what shade of gray you desire to paint it, such a tax upon one’s essential livelihood, labor, or sustenance is and always has been correctly a personal tax (i.e., a capitation upon one’s personalty), and thereby requiring apportionment. There is simply no evidence providing exception to this rule in the ratification of the XVI Amendment or within any prior tax legislation. The context throughout Pollock clarifies this without a doubt, while your own falsehoods of what was meant by a few references here and there concerning professional employments, trades, occupations, etc., discredits only yourself; clearly the context was one of entrepreneurialism and not one of absolutely necessity in the continuance of life and family.

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you continue to fail to cite any inaccuracies on Mr. Evans' site. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.

No, rather I have exercised my right to do so within my own writings, indirectly. If you think I am going to read through a 250,000 Webpage of complete hullabaloo and break it down for you line by line, then you are most certainly insane -besides by Mr. Evans’ own disclaimer located at the very top of that Webpage, he himself holds little credence in his very own work. While not intending to appear too “braggy”, clearly and unequivocally I decimate many of the key points being argued pros by Mr. Evans within his contrived “Tax Protester FAQ”, so really you ought not to flatter yourself too much on that point.

But really, why are you so interested in his FAQ, are you in fact Quatloser! member “LPC” himself? Common admit to it, it’s alright, I promise to not look down on you anymore than I already do, really.

The Constitution doesn't require "exigent circumstances". Really, you should take time to actually read the language of the Constitution instead of trying to insert into it stuff that isn't there.

Heh, so you think I have not read our U.S. Constitution (including our respective-fundamental documents)? Reading something is one thing, while researching it and revering it is something entirely different.

Clearly you know less than I had originally given you credit for. The point in which you had feebly refuted was addressed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 566 (1895), therein while addressing the intended application of ‘direct taxes’, it was noted: “Id. 93. And John Adams, Dawes, Sumner, King, and Sedgwick all agreed that a direct tax would be the last source of revenue resorted to by Congress.” Reflected upon further at 157 U.S. 429, 574: “… That the original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be exercised only in extraordinary exigencies…” And moreover noted at 157 U.S. 429, 564 and also in 158 U.S. 601, 606 (1895); 3 U.S. 171, 180 (1796). See also, Alexander Hamilton’s statements within Federalist Papers: No. 36, Para. 16 and No. 79, Para. 1.


Perhaps now might be an appropriate time for you to heed to ever-wise words:

“I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.” - H.L. Mencken

[Sonny Tufts]

the taxable activities and such other privileges have been encoded within the federal income tax statutes, be they inclusive to such specifically enumerated/numerated items or not.

The only "taxable activity" required to trigger the income tax is the receipt of income, whether it involves a privilege or not.

the starting point is in fact ‘gross income’, it is that ‘gross income’ less one’s ‘adjusted gross income’ that determines their ‘taxable income’; originally this process was simplified under ‘net income’.

Mr. White, you haven't a clue. Taxable income is gross income less allowable deductions and personal exemptions. Adjusted gross income is gross income minus what are called "above the line" deductions, such as moving expenses, student loan interest, and alimony paid. All other deductions are "below the line" and enter into the calculation of taxable income.

Excises are not taxes upon individual right or necessity, but upon privilege and benefit, as public charges sought through powers of internal taxation.

Balderdash. A person has the right to dispose of his property by gift -- that is one of the rights of private property. Yet the gift tax is an excise. There is no privilege involved whatsoever.

Neither, never have excise taxes been intended to impose tax upon livelihoods, laboring, subsistence earning, or any semblance thereof.

More balderdash. The law has never said that a tax on income needed for one's subsistence is a direct tax or that there is a floor above which the tax becomes an excise.

In England (from whence our entire legal system is based from) income taxes were understood to be a direct form of taxation.

Yes, and the Supreme Court has rejected this characterization in construing the direct tax clause in the Constitution.

Concerning Pollock you are being very dishonest, for the court had clarified that a tax levied upon real estate, or rents or incomes deriving from real estate, or upon personal property, or incomes deriving from personal property, were likewise ‘direct taxes’; thereby requiring apportionment.

No, it is you who are being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that the Pollock decision recognized the validity of a tax on wages and personal earnings:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such...

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Pollock

a tax upon one’s essential livelihood, labor, or sustenance is and always has been correctly a personal tax (i.e., a capitation upon one’s personalty), and thereby requiring apportionment. There is simply no evidence providing exception to this rule in the ratification of the XVI Amendment or within any prior tax legislation.

Mr. White, no court in the history of the United States has ever made such a holding regarding the federal income tax. If you think there is such a case, I'd like to see it. The income tax taxes income; it does not tax labor. Under your theory, there is some magical dividing line between the amount of income needed for someone to subsist on and an surplus amount that is presumably subject to taxation. But there isn't anything in the Constitution or the statutes that says that there is such a dividing line or income level. The 16th Amendment means what it says -- income taxes needn't be apportioned, period.

[Sonny Tufts]

While not intending to appear too “braggy”, clearly and unequivocally I decimate many of the key points being argued pros by Mr. Evans within his contrived “Tax Protester FAQ”, so really you ought not to flatter yourself too much on that point.

But really, why are you so interested in his FAQ, are you in fact Quatloser! member “LPC” himself? Common admit to it, it’s alright, I promise to not look down on you anymore than I already do, really.

Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

[Weston White]

ROFL, aww, it seems that I have gravely upset the poor lil' black sheep, or did a certain somebody wake up a little cranky this morning... hehehe.

[Weston White]

The only "taxable activity" required to trigger the income tax is the receipt of income, whether it involves a privilege or not.

Negative, although I believe you had meant to state that under the individual income tax, the receipt of ‘gross income’ is the privilege to be taxed. Earning an honest livelihood is a core right to exist, while the participation in privileges and receipt of benefits are not.

Mr. White, you haven't a clue. Taxable income is gross income less allowable deductions and personal exemptions. Adjusted gross income is gross income minus what are called "above the line" deductions, such as moving expenses, student loan interest, and alimony paid. All other deductions are "below the line" and enter into the calculation of taxable income.

Oh really now, well in any case, the point you made is one that is very apparent. For if an individual has nothing to “adjust”, they then have no ‘adjusted gross income’; just the same if they are below the threshold of having ‘gross income’ then it stands they have no ‘taxable income’ to be reported either, save for their forced withholdings under bondage:

26 USC Sec. 62: “(a) General rule
For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions: …”

26 USC Sec. 63: “(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.”

Balderdash. A person has the right to dispose of his property by gift -- that is one of the rights of private property. Yet the gift tax is an excise. There is no privilege involved whatsoever.

This analogy of yours is perhaps one of the dumbest cockamamie things I have yet to have seen posted on the Internet. Geez, you should be embarrassed at yourself! Such is however, a benefit to the recipient, just the same as succession and gambling/wagering taxes, etc. Neither is the disposing of property inclusive of it being a gift unto another, while owning and possessing property is not the same as transferring ownership of that property and neither is the public use of that property, (e.g., driving one’s car around on public property or charging fares for rides to various public destinations, etc.) Otherwise, everybody could evade most all taxation simply by labeling it as a gift or bequest. Moreover, taxes upon gifts are not income taxes (that is at least until the gift has itself realized its possessor a bona fide gain or profit), they are just that “gift taxes”; so your comparison is ultimately a moot point, regardless.

More balderdash. The law has never said that a tax on income needed for one's subsistence is a direct tax or that there is a floor above which the tax becomes an excise.

More misdirection on your part as floor or ceiling sums, figures, and amounts have nothing to do with the given method or mode of the indirect income tax being sought. Moreover, it has never been the intention of any taxing statutes to tax at the ‘source’, that being one’s capital, principal, or stock; as it was stated in Pollock that contracts, personalty, occupations, and the like were never considered appropriate subjects of direct taxation, with slaves being the only exception under ‘capitation taxes’. Regardless, even if such was intended to be the case then it would stand that this very principle would apply to all citizens protected by the XIV Amendment and such other fundamental rights to life, liberty, and sought after happiness.

You seem to hold a grave desire to confabulate a non-existent connection between profiting from one’s occupation within a professional or enterprising capacity and acquiring a basic means of livelihood from one’s occupation within a subordinate-employee capacity. There is a crisp distinction between the two. By the by, the former very likely lives in a fanciful 5,000 sq. ft. house, hires weekly housekeeping, and drives a luxury import vehicle (or two) to and from work each day, while dressing in designer suits, and regularly enjoys fine dinning and extravagant vacations; while the latter lives their life always and forever dependant on credit and loan debt, rents a too small and overpriced apartment, townhouse, or condo, and drives a used domestic car that barely passes its smog test, while wearing clothing from whatever local outlet superstore that offers them the best savings, and considers dinner at Sizzler or IHOP a rare luxury and vacationing at all is but a distant dream.

Yes, and the Supreme Court has rejected this characterization in construing the direct tax clause in the Constitution.

If that had actually been the case then we would have no XVI Amendment. As however, such was in fact the case; for respective clarity had been realized within the Pollock case. Namely that a uniform tax being sought upon what had directly emanated from a source, which itself would have required apportionment (so being a direct tax) is correctly in either instance a tax thereby requiring apportionment -which consequently was the sole intent of the XVI Amendment, to cross-cancel that common law effect, by discarding all consideration to the source from whence the realization of the ‘net income’ hath emanated.

Also see:

direct tax - “A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.”
http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#D

indirect tax - “A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.”
http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#I


19 CFR § 351.102 [Customs Duties] Definitions.
…
(b) Definitions. (1) Act. “Act” means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
…
(16) Direct tax. “Direct tax” means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.
…
(28) Indirect tax. “Indirect tax” means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

No, it is you who are being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that the Pollock decision recognized the validity of a tax on wages and personal earnings: …

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… You’re wrong! You’re wrong! You’re wrong!

1. That quotation is referring to gains and profits from business and enterprise, never does it refer to general wages, laboring, livelihood, or any such other thing or likeness as you have wrongfully asserted.
2. The quote clearly states “… gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments …”
3. Merely earning a livelihood is engaging none of: (1) a business, (2) a privilege, nor (3) “employments” within the very obvious context of the included paragraph.
4. Merely earning a livelihood does not, at least in most all instances, realize or bring in any of a ‘gain’ or ‘profit’, but merely sustenance or a livelihood.
5. As to the above quotation, during that entire reference in time the exemption amount was set so far beyond what the general populace could have possibly ever earned within a given tax period that the average day laborer would have never had to of worried or lent any consideration to the federal income tax, whatsoever, and so neither would the Justices have crossed such a notion within their own findings or their thoughts, while having rendered any portion of that quotation. Ergo, your reliance on that quotation renders itself absolutely moot, as the income tax upon the essential livelihoods of the masses was never intended to be its subject that is at least until the Federal Reserve withholding scheme began to root over the entirety of the federal income tax in the 1940’s. There simply could have been no foresight rendered by the Justices to such outright, damning, and coldhearted abuses by embedded progressives through the national taxing powers.

Mr. White, no court in the history of the United States has ever made such a holding regarding the federal income tax. If you think there is such a case, I'd like to see it. The income tax taxes income; it does not tax labor. Under your theory, there is some magical dividing line between the amount of income needed for someone to subsist on and an surplus amount that is presumably subject to taxation. But there isn't anything in the Constitution or the statutes that says that there is such a dividing line or income level. The 16th Amendment means what it says -- income taxes needn't be apportioned, period.

1. Simply that is because the taxing of labor or one’s means of establishing a basis in achieving livelihood is not nor has ever been the appropriate subject of the federal income tax.
2. The federal income tax does not tax “income”, it taxes ‘gross income’; if it were to tax one’s remuneration (i.e., income-capital) that would be no different from taxing that individual’s labor. Congress cannot convolute or end-run its designated powers of taxation (or whatever other powers) to bypass its constitutional constraints. Hence, to impose taxes on the shadow is to impose taxes directly on that shadow’s source; to impose taxes on a tree is to impose taxes directly on that tree’s roots.
3. Also see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 581 (1895) in quoting from: Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 444; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Pet. 435; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169; Railroad v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566; Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640; and Postal Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 698.
4. I have no “theory” as you assert in feeble desperation, simply a myriad of facts acquired from empirically timeless sources of evidence.
5. Once again, the present concern is not so much about the indirect taxing of ‘incomes’, or about dividing lines, sums, amounts, figures, floors, ceiling, etc., etc., etc. It is more about the still existing requirement for apportionment when directly taxing a person or their labor or livelihood, for such methods of taxation may only be accomplished through personal-capitation taxes, while meeting certain other constitutionally sound criteria. Pointedly, it is wholly improper for the federal government to snatch away $2.3-trillion without yield from its own people who are simply attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families (thereby resulting in the likely forfeiture of over 30% of most everybody’s annual ability); such a system breeds only lifelong agony, dependence, and peonage through and through, moreover, depriving our national posterity.
6. The XVI Amendment does not state that -well, gee, at least now we know who the harebrained author of IRS Pub. 2105 is, yea you, Sonny Jim-laugh; however, it does state the following: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,…” Now most certainly, if congress had meant to directly tax the sources of income -as opposed to what had been derived therefrom- then they would have ratified an earlier version of the Amendment that would have as fact provided them with such power; but hey guess what, they did no such thing.

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

Well to a certain extent, you are correct; being that Evans the esquire and his banal and sophomoric “Tax Protester FAQ” are of no real consequence, entailing a true work of absolute nothingness and to that end there really is nothing for which to decimate. In any event, my arguments are in fact supported by a score of valid evidence, possessing all of the legal basis afforded to such forms of acceptable evidence.

I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

Say what now! Not a one of you Quatfoolz! are even qualified Masters in Taxation, you are simply a short-order group of nominal JD’, CPA’, and the like all vying for that D.C. power play and hookup. And no, judges do so as to maintain their political funding for continuing their judgeship come voting time or to otherwise maintain backing for their appointment; they do so to get hired into extraordinarily high paying positions with companies such as Monsanto, Halliburton, H&R Block, Turbotax, Roche, Pfizer, Boeing, Bayer, etc., or to be hired by wealthy lobbying groups; they do so to upkeep the expectations of the status quo; they do it in support of the frivolous mantra wrought out of the “New Deal” because revering the socialist-progressive system is what they were taught all throughout their enrollment in academia; they do so as to maintain that $2.3-trillion annual gravy train with fluffy biscuit wheels; they do so as to upkeep the modernized game of the international stock and commodities markets, control commerce and GDP, enable limitless credit and loan debts, support both the federal PPT and the national Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR); they do so to keep one of the most vast pure profit professions increasing their annual revenue potential, i.e., all of the scamming vulture tax law firms located throughout America, ensuring the continuous increase in IRS funding and other such endless and nonsensical bureaucratic expanding, churning the countless private tax return filing firms, paper and ink companies, mailing fees, etc., etc., etc. Those are just some of the key reasons that they really do it.

And if you truly and seriously believe that such was the original intent of the then proposed XVI Amendment, then you are so far past the point of being naivete that you're to the point of being fully inept. Just imagine what would have happened to the process of ratification for the XVI Amendment if during 1909-1913 the federal government went to the several states asking their residents to support this new Constitutional Amendment that will provide the national government (along with the individual states at their own accord) a new taxing power so that they might endlessly tax the private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class as little as 1% and as much as 100%, to the sole discretion and enjoyment of Congress, all so that imposts could either be greatly decreased or outright eliminated. That Amendment would have been shot down so quickly that it would have never even seen the light of dawn.

And if you actually think that even for a moment, Ron Paul supporters are dumb enough to fall for such tact as spewed all throughout Mr. Evan’s “Tax Protester FAQ”, then perhaps it’s actually true what they say, one cannot fix another’s utter stupidity.

I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

No, not really that so much, but what does qualify me to achieve such “pontification” (as referred to by you) is being a duty bound American citizen that has taken three separate oaths to uphold our Nation’s fundamental principles, and moreover simply being a proactive and patriotic citizen that has been studying federal taxing statutes and regulations on a near fulltime basis for the last several years.

Contrary to your above-insinuated misconceptions, our United States of America is no such aristocracy. Americans are not a people to be ruled over, while having their personal interests dictated and piecemealed by the likes of dukes, barons, knights, esquires, priests, oracles, and such others. And speaking to your earlier mention of “magic”, acquiring a diploma in higher education does not “magically” bestow super-human sorcerer type capabilities to the bearer of such a vastly overpriced and much overvalued fanciful wall-framed degree.

In fact, the reality is that earning a degree in higher education most likely signifies that one has opted to sellout their own imagination, creativity, and individual pride for monetary wealth and professional power by wholly and mindlessly conforming to status quo expectations by permitting oneself to be assimilated into the mindset of the socialist agenda; effecting the continuance of the globally structured progressive “system”. Being a lawyer simply means that you have met the necessary requirements for taking the Bar Exam and once passed, you then meet the necessary legal requirements for representing the valid legal causes of others within the venue(s) where qualified to practice, while being duty bound by the ABA Model Rules and Standards. Ergo, a paralegal can be just as skilled in researching a specific body of law as an attorney can, and even more so; just as a law librarian can and just as any other individual that puts forth an honest effort can. For an individual’s potential is not to be defined by scholarly degrees, as that is a gift to be molded according to one’s own desires, motivations, and personal abilities.

Tossing out the remainder of your smelly red herrings, I already have for this “Points in Support of the CFT” is power-packed full of relevant references and sources: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...file.php?id=94

Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

No, this is not a valid assertion at all; you simply misconstrue knowledge, concern, and understanding for hubris. Meanwhile, you appreciate only absolute nothingness and nothing more.

[Weston White]

Also to those that are for a bit of reading, here is very interesting work The Memorandum, as crafted by the now rather famous attorney Tommy Cryer:

http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...ile.php?id=102

[Enforcer]

Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

I disagree with your assumptions.

Attorneys are always beholden to the organizations certifying them. For example, the American Bar Association defines the standards (at least in Georgia) that would be lawyers must meet before "practicing" law as an occupation.

Secondly, attorneys are officers of the court FIRST. If something benefits the system, it is their sworn duty to do what is in the best interests of the courts and government agencies. The fact that lawyers that worked enforcing the tax laws (i.e. IRS employees) have come out and disputed the theories YOU espouse are good enough for me to look closer into the facts.

Just because someone holds the paperwork where bureaucrats "recognize" their ability to read and apply the law is not evidence that they can or will do so. Our system operates off of POWER not AUTHORITY. The system may have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the AUTHORITY.

Check this out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173