LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet.
DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE.
Go look it up for yourself.

U.S. Federal Income Tax

Subjugation by taxation

Table of Contents

Courageous challenges me.
> Is that an admit or deny, and to which question/answer is it directed?

It was a denial:

"Compensation for labor or services is not 'income'" is a false statement.

Were you to make this statement in a professional advisory role to another, you'd be negligent, and liable for damages.

It was a denial:

Any claim or quote you have outside of the SCOTUS decisions in this respect are irrelevant. There is no law outside of jurisprudence.


It was a denial:

To make these claims in court will not only result in their categorical rejection, but additional punishments given in response, for having made claims that are understood apriori by the court and legal system in general to be frivolous. Attorneys making such a claim would risk being DISBARRED.

C//
>> Is that an admit or deny, and to which question/answer is it directed?

> It was a denial:

> "Compensation for labor or services is not 'income'" is a false statement.

Statement denied. Thank you.


The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert.

Q1. According to this passage above, from the Supreme Court in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), was the definition of income "necessary" in the administration of the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112)?
The default answer is yes.
Dale Eastman wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
> Date:     Sun, 16 Oct 2005 07:07:48 -0700
> From:     Courageous <courageous@procusion.com>
> To:     Dale Eastman <dalereastman@sprintmail.com>
> References:     <%FX1f.8736$Tn5.513@trnddc08>
> <eMg2f.8614$zQ3.1914@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> <QRg2f.21359$HM1.5804@trnddc04>
> <qnw2f.9171$oc.7213@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> <Fyw2f.181863$p_1.43828@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> <97c3f.1900$y14.111@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> <gferk111r2aiji4n86s84qnvsd0guicsgj@4ax.com>
> <Fql3f.2124$y14.2032@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> <789uk15agnf9ber6mbta7lhsod0e47dtgk@4ax.com>
> <olU3f.746$fc7.575@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>
>
>> http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/courageous.html
>
>
> I've never offered you permission to post my messages on your
> website. To be clear, I'm specifically telling you that you
> do not have that right, and have no future right.
>
> Take this and all others like it down immediately.
>
> I should warn you that DMCA gives me the ability to take down
> your entire website if you do not comply.
>
> I do not like you at all.
>
> C//
>

A reverse lookup for courageous@procusion.com returns no hits.
Courageous is a nameless scum hiding behind a computer. Not very courageous, one might say.

You chose to engage with me.
I'm recording the exchange for posterity.

If you don't want your lies posted on my website, don't engage with me.

If you think you are so damn right, then engage with me and that gets recorded also.

As to pulling my web site down, I have a right to face my accuser. You have to uncloak from you anonymity to touch me.

I don't take lightly to free speech first amendment violations.

I don't see an X Archive no in your header.

You've posted anonymously to the public domain.

The page and all your replies STAY.

Take your best shot coward.

You do what you think you have to. Because after you do what you think you have to do, I will do what I must.....



NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:35:20 -0500
From: Courageous <courageous@procusion.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.liberalism
Subject: Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:34:44 -0700
Message-ID: <789uk15agnf9ber6mbta7lhsod0e47dtgk@4ax.com>
References: <yIE1f.8032$zQ3.6665@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <%FX1f.8736$Tn5.513@trnddc08> <eMg2f.8614$zQ3.1914@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<QRg2f.21359$HM1.5804@trnddc04> <qnw2f.9171$oc.7213@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<Fyw2f.181863$p_1.43828@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> <97c3f.1900$y14.111@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<gferk111r2aiji4n86s84qnvsd0guicsgj@4ax.com> <Fql3f.2124$y14.2032@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.93.33.242
X-Trace: sv3-gXHTuzAYHX29zaaZ85K5avqLOLTxQm8LPGCoCFSur71jZfI54ZMtpLrrM5t3P
8ozY+1t+1sZwD/P6M3!C7yxp8IBhLlUSjo1Oscz1nkMdo+1LtyNuLgH2+x2SZ2RM2tPYdA2C
rXX5lMQeqSZ4sXJ+FjFAz0R!Y7nVYOqY7QlhY4pRAEvQgToPxX1S
X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.taxes:276099 alt.politics.economics:554207 talk.politics.misc:3682570 alt.politics.liberalism:1366892
X-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:35:21 PDT (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
You're about to learn a lesson....
So are you.

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
 
-HEAD-
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
 
-STATUTE-
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

      I guess the following words of Courageous Coward are the literary works he intends to sell commercially under his "copyright", and thus he sees a LARGE "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" hereinafter shown for purposes of RIDICULE.

Wes, virtually all of these people are intensely delusional. I have spoken with numerous 'tax objectors', and more than half the time, the 2nd topic after taxes that comes up in conversation is the Kennedy Assasination or the Holocaust Scam or, well, or... pretty much anything you might find in the X files.
Looney toons, without a doubt.

Public Domain Cite
Everything Dale digests is twisted by his delusion to fit his point
of view. You have to understand that once someone whips themselves into
the kind of zealotry he's exhibiting, there is no redeeming them. They
will either peeter out our crash, depending how deep they go.

Public Domain Cite
Not to mention arguing about distracting minutiae! AS IF
aid for families with dependent children amounted to any
significant part of the federal budget! It's barely a line
item! No one is serious about federal bloat if they're not
addressing SS, the military, debt, or agency bloat. Anything
else is just the pathetic meanderings of a republocrat
sympathizer!

Public Domain Cite
The formost characteristic of various "Tax Protestor" types
is delusional thinking.

Public Domain Cite
No:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

You're delusional and really need psychiatric help.

Your various lines of thinking are putting you in significant personal
jeopardy. Total financial ruin, plus possibly criminal prosecution, is
only a few short additional delusional thoughts away...

Public Domain Cite
Of course you will; thought disorders will do that. All those
thoughts, dancing through your head. Got to go some where, eh?

Public Domain Cite
Yes, one of the problem with these people is that, not only are
they dangerous to themselves, but they are dangerous to those parties
that these "tax protestors" hoodwink.

Little do they know: pretending that you can find an escape clause
by the lack of some trivial dotted eye or crossed tee in a black
letter law document is a great way to get hit by a legal freight train.

Judges have no patience for this bullshit, and have been known to
hit defendants with five figure fines just for making the arguments.

These arguments are /frivolous/, as in the legal sense of "frivolous,"
meaning that they are considered to be understood to be arguments one does
not make in court without risking punishment. An attorney making one
of these arguments would risk a suspension, or worse: DISBARMENT.

Dale Eastman really needs to rethink himself.

Public Domain Cite
What anyone with any sense sees is a delusional, narcissistic
basket case. You do know, don't you, that's how the average
person sees you tax scammers.

Public Domain Cite
Your continuing delusional attempts to see black letter the law
the way you'd like it are duly noted. Your behaviors, lines of
thinking, are all pathologic. Get help before it's too late.

Public Domain Cite
The one answer that remains painfully correct is that if one acts
upon your so-called "knowledge," jail is a quite possible result.
The courts at this point won't even tolerate the arguments in court,
will fine you for making them per se, and quite possibly disbar an
attorney. Your fantasy is that through some perception of lack of
properly dotted eyes or crossed tees, that you know the law. Black
letter law and case law meet, and courts themselves decide on what
laws mean. Not you.

Public Domain Cite
You're living in a big fantasy land, Dale. Try these arguments of
yours in court. Or better yet, don't. They'll fine you a good $40K
if you try. No attorney's will touch these arguments. They'd get
disbarred.

Public Domain Cite
As it is, you are just ranting, and worse, are making a sufficient
nuisance out of yourself that you are a bit of a menace to the
public. Convincing others to act according to your beliefs and
not pay taxes on income is not only negligent, I regard it as
gross disregard of the life and livelihoods of others.

Public Domain Cite
For the lurker's, what these pages they are so in umbrage over are equivilent to, is when somebody is spewing lies and crap, and you punch the record button on a recorder and set it down in front of them.

Ask yourself what they don't want recorded... And why.

Google is archiving usenet messages here, in all perpetuity, you stupid ignoramus. What I object to is you is taking my messages, without my permission, and putting them to your personal use. And you're about to learn that your ability to understand black letter law is very weak.
Google is archiving usenet messages here, in all perpetuity, you stupid ignoramus.

Then I suggest you go pester google.

What I object to is you is taking my messages, without my permission, and putting them to your personal use.

My personal use is to educate any and all what a slimy coward you are. 
My personal use is to show what a liar and obfuscator you are.

And you're about to learn that your ability to understand black letter law is very weak.

Take your best shot, coward.  Todays date of threat by coward is 16Oct05.


Did you figure out how you're going to get commercial loss to stick yet?



The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert.

Q1. According to this passage above, from the Supreme Court in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), was the definition of income "necessary" in the administration of the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112)?
The default answer is yes.

Admit or deny...

If you've the balls to have your answer on the record.

Table of Contents