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.

Them

Brian Rookard - Does what lawyers do best - Part 1

Table of Contents
Mr. Rookard has chosen to engage me.  In the interest of not overly prejudicing the reader's perception of Mr. Rookard, I am going to start this particular page as If I have never had dialog with Mr. Rookard before.

The place where this particular argument ensues is in the comment section of a post on Trial Logs Blogspot.

The comment section is under this posting regarding the Arthur Farnsworth trial for willful evasion of the income tax.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Dear subscriber,

So far so good with the trial. The government's back is against the wall, as it had to admit that there was never any assessment for the three years mentioned in the indictment. When Judge Padova pointed out that the 3rd circuit (here in Penna.) has ruled that you can't have a tax evasion without an assessment, the government realized its case is in jeopardy and filed an appeal of his ruling to the Court of Appeals. Thus, my district court trial is on hold until word comes down Friday from the 3rd circuit. We'll find out then one of three things: the appeal is rejected as frivolous, the appeal is denied, or the appeal is accepted. If the third, we'll be on hold until that court makes a ruling on the issue. If the first or second, we resume in some capacity on Monday, with the government holding a very poor hand of cards.


All press clippings are up on the Web site. www.ArtFarnsworth.org

Keep the prayers coming - they're working! If an appellate court session is forthcoming, then this will cost me even more. If you can help financially, I would very much appreciate it. See info on Web site.

Art

This is the point where I engaged the topic:

Dale,
....
So can by your understanding share your ideas if you have any on "assessment" and why it is causing the government so much trouble?
Anonymous2 | 02.06.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Sure, A2.

If your local government sends you a tax bill for your property taxes, and no tax has been assessed, how much tax are you "required" to pay?

No assessment, no tax due.
End of story.

Now as to the Secretary or his delegates making an assessment, the statute is very clear that the Secretary can only assess an income tax shown on a return.

I assume Mr. Farnsworth did not submit a return, therefore, the Secretary can only assess an income tax shown on a return made by the Secretary or his delegate.

If the Secretary or his delegate does not have the authority to make a return, then the process ends right there.

Secretary's Authority to Assess

I've things to do, so I'm offline for a bit.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.06.06 - 4:39 pm | #

Mr. Rookard posted this, and the battle was joined.

Dale says: "No assessment, no tax due.
End of story."

Supreme Court says: "[T]he Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment." [citing section 6151] Baral v. U.S., 528 U.S. 431
Brian Rookard | 02.12.06 - 10:49 am | #

Remember folks, the issue is the government attempting to force non-taxpayers to pay taxes they do not owe.  The next series of exchanges between Mr. Rookard and myself effectively come down to Mr. Rookard attempting to say I am wrong because of the words of section 6151.  As will be shown, section 6151 is not a one size fits all statute. Prerequisite conditions must be met before section 6151 activates.

With the limitations of the blog as to citing links above a certain count, my post may be broken up over a series of posts.

Mr. Rookard says:
Supreme Court says: "[T]he Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment." [citing section 6151] Baral v. U.S., 528 U.S. 431

I'll start with the cited code section:
Code section 6151 says:
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

Keep in mind, if a person is not required to file, there is no requirement to pay a tax.

Since the code section Mr. Rookard has cited is predicated upon "when a return of tax is required" and a "person required" the next question is: WHO is that person, and WHEN is that person "required" to file. To which Mr. Rookard will generally cite section 6012(a)

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, ...

Only "taxpayers" have "taxable years". Both of which are statutorily defined "terms", but I digress.

"Gross income" is a statutorily defined in section 61

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

The next question then becomes, What is INCOME?
Dale Eastman. | Homepage | 02.12.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Please note, dear reader, that I have already pointed out that activation of section 6151 is predicated upon a certain set of circumstances that does not apply.  The limitations of the blog are that if there are too many hyperlinks, the server won't accept the post for publishing, thus a post with a lot of links will have to be spread over several posts.

With the limitations of the blog as to citing links above a certain count, my post may be broken up over a series of posts.

Cont:

The next question then becomes, What is INCOME?

I refer the reader to my web site pages, numbered 4 to 10 and the questions Q1 through Q74. Mr. Rookard, you are invited to answer those 74 questions and publicly post your answers. Silence equates to agreement.

If one does not have "income in it's constitutional sense" then "gross income means all income from whatever source derived" DOES NOT APPLY.

I don't have "corporate income", Therefore, I don't have "Constitutional income", Therefore, If I have gross income above the threshhold amount it can only be via the short circuit of "revenue" to "gross income" provided for, and cross referenced in section 61(b), which states:

For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following).

"Items specifically included in gross income" are NOT the same as "income in it's constitutional sense", though both become "gross income" per section 61.

That is the only avenue left open for you to attempt to claim I am required to make a return and pay a tax, Mr. Rookard.
Dale Eastman. | Homepage | 02.12.06 - 1:32 pm | #

A loose end point raised by myself and ignored by Mr. Rookard:
  1. "Constitutional Income" and "Income, in its Constitutional sense."

I said:
"No assessment, no tax due."

Mr. Rookard says:
Supreme Court says: "[T]he Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment." [citing section 6151] Baral v. U.S., 528 U.S. 431
Findlaw cite Baral v. U.S.

The issue of the case: When is an estimated or withheld tax is "paid".

From the synopsis at the top of the case page:
Held: Remittances of estimated income tax and withholding tax are "paid" on the due date of a calendar year taxpayer's income tax return.
...
Contrary to Baral's claim, the withholding tax and estimated tax are not taxes in their own right (separate from the income tax), that are converted into income tax only on the income tax return. Rather, they are methods for collecting income taxes. And the Tax Code directly contradicts Baral's notion that income tax is "paid" under §6511(b)(2)(A) only when the income tax is assessed.

Section 6511(i) says:
(i) Cross references
(1) For time return deemed filed and tax considered paid, see section 6513.
Section 6513(a) says:
For purposes of section 6511, any return filed before the last day prescribed for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day.

Deeper in the case, is the passage Mr. Rookard cited:
Taking a more metaphysical tack, Baral contends that income tax is "paid" under §6511(b)(2)(A) only when the income tax is assessed--... --because the concept of payment makes sense only when the liability is "defined, known, and fixed by assessment," Brief for Petitioner. But the Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment.

Bold emphasis mine.
Remember folks, the issue is when a payment already sent to the IRS is "considered" paid. Continuing with the cite:

See §6151(a) ("[T]he person required to make [a return of tax] shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax ... at the time and place fixed for filing the return" (emphasis added)); §6213(b)(4) ("Any amount paid as a tax or in respect of a tax may be assessed upon the receipt of such payment "...

Bold emphasis mine.
I've already covered where 6151 leads in my prior post.

One can not have a tax liability until the tax is assessed. If the tax is not assessed, there is no tax liability. With no liability, no tax is due.

Now returning to my statement from above: "No assessment, no tax due."
Dale Eastman. | Homepage | 02.12.06 - 2:16 pm | #

It is Mr. Rookard's intent to attempt to make it look like he has discredited me.  He doesn't want the person looking at this series of posts for the first time, not knowing anything about the deeper background issues, to look any further than his besmirching of myself.  His sole purpose is to kill your curiosity of the deeper issues.

Please note these loose ends from the above post:
Issue #:
  1. The issue of the Baral case, is WHEN a tax already paid, is officially deemed to have been paid.
  2. Baral was a "taxpayer", as evidenced by his paying an estimated tax, and as evidenced by his submitting a tax return.
  3. The rules for "taxpayers" do not apply to "nontaxpayers".
  4. Proof of #4 not presently submitted.  Simple logic of the statement is good enough for the moment.
  5. A "taxpayer" is a person required to make a return of tax. A "nontaxpayer" is NOT required to make a return of tax.
  6. The bold emphasized word "may" in the court passage cited does NOT mean must.
Mr. Rookard, ignoring the points of the loose ends again posts an excerpt from the Baral case:

Dale says: "One can not have a tax liability until the tax is assessed. If the tax is not assessed, there is no tax liability. With no liability, no tax is due."

Supreme Court says: "Taking a more metaphysical tack, Baral contends that income tax is "paid" under §6511(b)(2)(A) only when the income tax is assessed--here, June 1 or July 19, 1993, see supra, at 4--because the concept of payment makes sense only when the liability is "defined, known, and fixed by assessment," Brief for Petitioner 9. But the Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment. See §6151(a) ("[T]he person required to make [a return of tax] shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax ... at the time and place fixed for filing the return" (emphasis added))" - Baral v. U.S.


Dale just doesn't get it.
.
Brian Rookard | 02.13.06 - 9:22 pm | #

The reality of Mr. Rookard's posting of the Baral case comes down to one thing, and one thing only:  It was a wordy method of introducing section 6151 of the IRC. (Internal Revenue Code).  The reader is invited to notice the besmirchment of Mr. Rookard's unsubstantiated insult and arrogant attitude.  Mr. Rookard's opinion is that "Dale just doesn't get it."  His arrogance is for the purpose of angering his opponents and making them go away so he can win by default, and keep you from researching the deeper issues.

In the above post, Mr. Rookard cites my words;
"One can not have a tax liability until the tax is assessed. If the tax is not assessed, there is no tax liability. With no liability, no tax is due.

Obviously, Mr. Rookard does not agree with those words. To attack those words in an attempt to disprove them, Mr. Rookard (again) cites the Baral case. This is a misrepresentation of what the case says, and this is an attempt by Mr. Rookard to obfuscate and fool the casual reader into believing something other than what is the truth.
------------------
The general issue of the case: When an estimated or withheld tax is legally considered "paid".
The specific issue of the case: When was Baral's estimated and withheld tax considered legally "paid".

Or, in the language of the code, The general issue of the case:
When an estimated or withheld "payment of the tax shall be considered made";
When a withheld tax "shall ... be deemed to have been paid";
When an estimated tax "shall ... be deemed to have been paid";

This issue regarding when an estimated or withheld tax "shall be considered made; or deemed to have been paid" is the lynchpin regarding whether Baral gets credit for money paid to the government.

The facts of the case, in simple English:
Throughout 1988 money was withheld from Baral and such money was given to the government.
In January 1989, additional money was given to the government by Baral.
1988 taxes were due April 15, 1989.
Baral requested and received an extension of time to file to August 15, 1989.
Baral finally filed his 1988 tax on June 1, 1993.
Baral had paid an excess amount of estimated tax according to his return that he finally filed.
Baral requested this excess go toward his 1989 tax liability.
The IRS denied this request based upon WHEN the money given to the IRS was "paid".
(In other words, the IRS denied Baral's request based upon when money given to the IRS was "deemed to have been paid".

(Thank you Mr. Rookard for citing a case that highlights "Legal Plunder" just as Frederic Bastiat describes it in his treatise, "The Law".)
------------------

Mr. Rookard's cite of the court, edited for clarity:
"Taking a more metaphysical tack, Baral contends that income tax is "paid" ... when the income tax is assessed."

In other words; Baral contends that income tax is "considered made or deemed to have been paid" ... when the income tax is assessed.

Continuing with the quote:
"But the Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not occur before assessment." See ... §6213(b)(4) ("Any amount paid as a tax or in respect of a tax may be assessed upon the receipt of such payment " (emphasis added)).

The court's quote with the proper context inserted:
[T]he Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not [be considered made] before assessment. "See ... §6213(b)(4) ("Any amount paid as a tax or in respect of a tax may be assessed upon the receipt of such payment " (emphasis added))."
[T]he Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not [be deemed to have been paid] before assessment. "See ... §6213(b)(4) ("Any amount paid as a tax or in respect of a tax may be assessed upon the receipt of such payment " (emphasis added))."

In English, what is paid can be assessed, so quite logically, a payment must happen before assessment in order for that payment to be assessed.
------------------

Returning to the portion of the cite omitted; returning to the cite Mr. Rookard somehow thinks invalidates my statements, WITH the proper context attached:

[T]he Code directly contradicts the notion that payment may not [be considered made] before assessment; See §6151(a) ("[T]he person required to make a return of tax shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax.
.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.15.06 - 12:51 pm | #


Introduced in the post above, is the proper context of the Baral case.  In the end, Mr. Rookard has done nothing more than cited IRC section 6151.  Ask yourselves why all the fluff when Mr. Rookard could have just said, 'Section 6151 says...'.

Also, please note the new loose ends that Mr. Rookard has chosen to ignore:
  1. Theft of the taxpayer's money by legal plunder.
  2. The calling of his deliberate misrepresentation of what the court has actually stated, which is when a tax already paid is legally "considered made".
Not only has Mr. Rookard deliberately obfuscated the context of the court case he cites, he obfuscates the context that "assessment" is being discussed in, in this comment string on this blog.

That context is this:
So far so good with the trial. The government's back is against the wall, as it had to admit that there was never any assessment for the three years mentioned in the indictment. When Judge Padova pointed out that the 3rd circuit (here in Penna.) has ruled that you can't have a tax evasion without an assessment, the government realized its case is in jeopardy and filed an appeal of his ruling to the Court of Appeals.

Coupled with this:
What should be discussed here is, why is assessment so vital and a contention to the government?
Dale, ... ... ... So can by your understanding share your ideas if you have any on "assessment" and why it is causing the government so much trouble?

To which I said this:
Sure, A2.

If your local government sends you a tax bill for your property taxes, and no tax has been assessed, how much tax are you "required" to pay?

No assessment, no tax due.
End of story.

I also said this in response to the first instance of Mr. Rookard's off point cite of the Baral case:

"One can not have a tax liability until the tax is assessed. If the tax is not assessed, there is no tax liability. With no liability, no tax is due.

The end result of Mr. Rookard's off point cite of the Baral case is to do nothing more than introduce IRC section 6151 which (sigh) I have already addressed in my 02.12.06 - 1:31 pm post above.

But first, here's the context of the situation in simple words:

IRS:
He owes us money for a tax debt.
He didn't pay it, so he is attempting to evade a tax.

ASSESSMENT:
1. The act of assessing; appraisal. 2. An amount assessed, as for taxation.

LOGIC:
How can the amount owed, if any, be known without an assessment?
How can there be an evasion of tax if there is no evidence that a tax is owed.

Judge Padova:
You can't have a tax evasion without an assessment.

IRS (pouting):
We want that rule changed.

With a clear understanding of the context it's time to make clear what the ASSESSMENT issue is, using the IRC statutes and tax regulations. Which will further show how off point Mr. Rookard is.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.15.06 - 12:54 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice that I have pointed out the context of this line of comments is "ASSESSMENTS".

Mr. Farnsworth is up on charges of "tax evasion", so let's start with the penalty statute for "tax evasion", the section of law being applied against Mr. Farnsworth.

Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Let us substitute Subtitle A - Income Taxes into this law, since that is the tax Mr. Farnsworth is accused of evading, and clean it up a little for readability:

Any person who willfully attempts ... to evade ... Subtitle A - Income Taxes or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of.. blah, blah.

When shown in this light, we run right smack into a point of logic:
If there are no Subtitle A income taxes that apply to Mr. Farnsworth, there can NOT be any attempts to evade, willful or otherwise, such Subtitle A income taxes.

The runs us into another point of logic:
PROOF. How can the IRS prove that such Subtitle A income taxes apply to Mr. Farnsworth?
If there is no proof of an amount of income tax owed by Mr. Farnsworth, then there is no proof that Mr. Farnsworth has attempted to evade Subtitle A income taxes.

So, how is the amount of tax owed by any natural person determined and made official?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.15.06 - 12:56 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice the explanation of the context of "ASSESSMENTS'.

First, we'll look at how the amount of tax owed (or allegedly owed) by a person is made official.

Sec. 6203. Method of assessment

The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

CFR301.6203-1 Method of assessment.

The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment.
...
The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record.
The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer.

The previous is what makes the assessment, the amount of tax (liability) owed, official. But the question remains, how is the amount assessed to be determined? The regulation giving the method of assessment tells us "The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown" and this fits quite nicely with section 6151 shown above.

Well, what if a natural person did NOT file a return. Where does the amount to be assessed come from? "[T]he amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record." There is a loose end here. What is "the supporting list" and what is "the supporting record"? Setting aside the loose end and moving on.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.15.06 - 12:57 pm | #

The next question I have, is, By what authority is anyone in government allowed to determine (calculate) a natural person's tax liability?

Sec. 6201. Assessment authority

(a) Authority of Secretary
(Note: Secretary also means the Secretary's delegates)

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.

Read by itself, the above sentence very clearly does NOT include "income" taxes, since "income" taxes are not paid by stamp.

Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.
(Note: "lists" refer to taxable objects.)

There's the authority. The Secretary or his delegate shall assess all taxes determined and shown ON A RETURN. This ties up the previous loose end regarding what is "the supporting record"? The "supporting record" is a properly executed return. Authority for the Secretary or his delegate to execute a return is a loose end.

(2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp
(A) Omitted stamps
Whenever any article upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp is sold or removed for sale or use by the manufacturer thereof or whenever any transaction or act upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp occurs without the use of the proper stamp, it shall be the duty of the Secretary, upon such information as he can obtain, to estimate the amount of tax which has been omitted to be paid and to make assessment therefor upon the person or persons the Secretary determines to be liable for such tax.

This statute giving the Secretary or his delegate authority to assess taxes (determine official tax liability) does not allow the Secretary or his delegate to "upon such information as he can obtain, to estimate the amount of tax which has been omitted to be paid and to make assessment therefor" in the case of an "income" tax. This authority to estimate the amount of tax only applies to taxes paid by stamp.


CFR301.6201-1 Assessment authority.

(a) In general. The district director is authorized and required to make all inquiries necessary to the determination and assessment of all taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or any prior internal revenue law. The district director is further authorized and required, and the director of the regional service center is authorized, to make the determinations and the assessments of such taxes. However, certain inquiries and determinations are, by direction of the Commissioner, made by other officials, such as assistant regional commissioners. The term ``taxes'' includes interest, additional amounts, additions to the taxes, and assessable penalties. The authority of the district director and the director of the regional service center to make assessments includes the following:

(1) Taxes shown on return. The district director or the director of the regional service center shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the district director or the director of the regional service center and disclosed on a return or list.

The list, is a list of taxable objects. The return is the form sent in by the taxpayer listing the tax the taxpayer has determined he owes. Again, we have a loose end as in the statute this regulation supports-- The authority to execute a return.

And again, the "upon such information as he can obtain" and "estimate the amount of the tax" is only authorized in regard to unpaid taxes payable by stamp.

(2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp. (i) If without the use of the proper stamp:
(a) Any article upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp is sold or removed for sale or use by the manufacturer thereof, or
(b) Any transaction or act upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp occurs;

The district director, upon such information as he can obtain, must estimate the amount of the tax which has not been paid and the district director or the director of the regional service center must make assessment therefor upon the person the district director determines to be liable for the tax. However, the district director or the director of the regional service center may not assess any tax which is payable by stamp unless the taxpayer fails to pay such tax at the time and in the manner provided by law or regulations.


As I stated, Mr. Rookard, "One can not have a tax liability until the tax is assessed. If the tax is not assessed, there is no tax liability. With no liability, no tax is due.

For those interested in the loose end of the Secretary's authority to execute a return, I have addressed that starting on this web page. Please read from that page through the next 3... Or 4, pages.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.15.06 - 1:02 pm | #

The reader is now invited to see if Mr. Rookard addressess these points made in my forgoing posts:
  1. Generally speaking, There MUST be a tax imposed or there can not be an attempt to evade the tax.
  2. Specifically speaking, If there is no "OFFICIAL" assessment, there can not be an "OFFICIAL" attempt to evade a non existent (read "OFFICIAL") tax.
  3. In the case of subtitle A income taxes, The assessment can ONLY be the amount shown on a return.
  4. If there is no return made by an alleged taxpayer, then the only place that amount can come from is a return executed by a properly authorized delegate of the secretary.
  5. There is NO AUTHORITY for any delegate of the secretary to execute a form 1040.
  6. Therefore there is no way a legitimate assessment of a Subtitle A income tax can be made in the case of the natural human.

Dale writes a book, all in the vain hope that he can evade the clear command of Section 6151 - taxes shall be paid, WITHOUT ASSESSMENT.

There is no requirement that there must be an assessment before there can be liability for payment.

An assessment is a requisite for COLLECTION by the IRS (lien and levy) ... but it IS NOT required in order for the person who must file the return to pay the tax.

Dale seeks to word-smith his way out of the plain language of the statute.
Brian Rookard | 02.15.06 - 7:04 pm | #


Very good Mr. Rookard.  What you claim is "the clear command of Section 6151" just as clearly commands the requirement of a certain situation to activate....  And THAT situation DOES NOT EXIST in the case of a "nontaxpayer" nor does it exist in the case of Art Farnsworth.

Mr. Rookard, I am taking your statement at face value. I am paraphrasing your statement. And I am asking you if my paraphrase is still within the intent of what you posted with this statement:

Dale writes a book, all in the vain hope that he can evade the clear command of Section 6151 - taxes shall be paid, WITHOUT ASSESSMENT.

Is the gist of your statement: Dale Eastman and others similarly situated SHALL pay taxes without assessment per section 6151?

Yes or no?

Then I will address the remainder of your post.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.15.06 - 9:38 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice that Mr. Rookard ignores a straight up question that I have asked so that I may be sure of Mr. Rookard's position.
  1. Mr. Rookard is asked to clarify his point by clarifying whether I have understood his point correctly.

Please Dale, don't bother ... because you've shown in other fora that you don't address the posts, but evade and attempt to change the subject.

Section 6151 is clear, the person who is to file the return shall pay the tax without assessment or notice and demand.

Does section 6151 say that assessment is not required in order for the person to be required to pay?

Answering my own question since I know you won't ... the answer is, of course, that the person is required to pay without there being an assessment.

Assessment is required for collection by the IRS.
Brian Rookard | 02.15.06 - 11:17 pm | #

First sentence in reply: "because you've shown in other fora that you don't address the posts, but evade and attempt to change the subject"
POT-KETTLE-BLACK.  Or in a single word: Hypocrite.
I'll expand upon this momentarily.

2nd sentence: "Section 6151 is clear, the person who is to file the return shall pay the tax without assessment or notice and demand."
Yes. And section 6151 is JUST as clear- Section 6151 DOES NOT APPLY if a person is not required to file a return... Which is the context of the Farnsworth case.

3rd sentence: "Does section 6151 say that assessment is not required in order for the person to be required to pay?"  Section 6151 is NOT the requirement to pay...   No Liability: No requirement to pay.  What part of those 6 words do you not understand?  Your entire argument so far has been based upon your ASSumption that there is a liability.   Your entire attempt to evade and change the subject has been to attempt to make your assumption part of the record in this court of public opinion.

4th sentence: "of course, that the person is required to pay without there being an assessment."
Congratulations on evading the subject and changing it..... 
Oh wait, the person is NOT required to pay if there is no tax liability... You haven't proven that yet.

5th sentence, did you err? You let a bit of the truth slip out: "Assessment is required for collection by the IRS."
Yep.  Now how does that assessment happen.  So far, on this specific question, you have ignored my posts regarding sections 7201, 6203 and its regulation, and 6201 and its regulation.

Please Dale, don't bother ... because you've shown in other fora that you don't address the posts, but evade and attempt to change the subject.
Quid pro quo.

You just described yourself in this "fora". You yourself have just failed to address the post I made. You just evaded and changed the subject.
And just like you did, I shall answer my own question because you won't.

Is the gist of your statement: Dale Eastman and others similarly situated SHALL pay taxes without assessment per section 6151?
Answering for Mr. Rookard, since he refuses to: Yes.
Yes, the gist of your statement is that Eastman and others SHALL pay taxes without assessment per section 6151?

Had you answered the question instead of being yourself, we would have gotten to your point all the quicker.
Section 6151 is clear, the person who is to file the return shall pay the tax without assessment or notice and demand.

Let's take a look at the actual written words of law, as downloadable from the GPO website and compare them to your sloppy paraphrase of said words.

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

I'm sorry Mr. Rookard. Activation of this statute can not happen unless a return is required, AND also there needs to be a person required to make that return.

Absent a requirement for a return, there is no application of this statute.
Absent a return, what proof is there that the return was required?
If the statute is not applied: No assessment- no tax payment required.

Your TCP does not refute my statement.
You dishonestly argue what the statute says, instead of how it applies to the given situation.
You assume and presume the situation contains the required return which activates 6151.
That is not the situation, thus 6151 is NOT activated.

Thus; Dale Eastman and others similarly situated are NOT required to pay taxes without assessment, because NO RETURN IS REQUIRED and Dale Eastman and others similarly situated are NOT PERSONS REQUIRED.

By your very words, you presume that every person is a "taxpayer". That is not the case. Section 6151 only applies to taxpayers.

My statement stands: No assessment- no tax payment required.

And as to writing books... If that's what it takes to refute your lies, then that's what it takes.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.16.06 - 4:02 pm | #


Loose end from this post:
The paraphrased (read incorrect) quote of section 6151.
Again, Mr. Rookard ignores that the situation does not apply to activate section 6151.

Poor Dale ... the requirement to file an income tax return is found in 6012.

If you meet the thresholds for gross income ... you must file the return.

Of course, the pool cleaners and shoe shiners of the tax protestor movement might not make enough to trigger the filing requirement ... but hey, they weren't making enough to be taxed in the first place.
Brian Rookard | 02.17.06 - 7:39 am | #

In other words: Oops, Eastman has nailed the point down that 6151 doesn't apply under every situation.

Then there is the flames, personal insults and attacks for the purpose of besmirchment:
"Poor Dale"; "the pool cleaners and shoe shiners of the tax protestor movement might not make enough"; "they weren't making enough to be taxed in the first place"
Well spoken for a man like Mr. Rookard since his son's mother is the same woman as Mr. Rookard's mother.  Quid Pro Quo.

And Dear Reader, you are invite to ask yourself if Mr. Rookard bothered to read what I had posted previously, and just reposted:

Brian Rookard states in his 02.17.06 - 7:39 am post:
"Poor Dale ... the requirement to file an income tax return is found in 6012"

Dale Eastman PREVIOUSLY stated in his 02.12.06 - 1:31 pm post which continues on his 02.12.06 - 1:32 pm post:

I'll start with the cited code section:
Code section 6151 says:
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

Keep in mind, if a person is not required to file, there is no requirement to pay a tax.

Since the code section Mr. Rookard has cited is predicated upon "when a return of tax is required" and a "person required" the next question is: WHO is that person, and WHEN is that person "required" to file. To which Mr. Rookard will generally cite section 6012(a)

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, ...

Only "taxpayers" have "taxable years". Both of which are statutorily defined "terms", but I digress.

"Gross income" is a statutorily defined in section 61

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

The next question then becomes, What is INCOME?

I refer the reader to my web site pages, numbered 4 to 10 and the questions Q1 through Q74. Mr. Rookard, you are invited to answer those 74 questions and publicly post your answers. Silence equates to agreement.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 12:40 pm | #

The quatloosers will NEVER answer to anything that proves them wrong on any point.

"Silence equates to agreement." - Dale Eastman

I do not agree with you. There, feel better?
Anonymous | 02.17.06 - 12:44 pm | #

 Last post was mine, of course.
Brian Rookard | 02.17.06 - 12:45 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice the arrogance of this deity's mighty assholiness.

Mr. Rookard states in his 02.15.06 - 7:04 pm post:

There is no requirement that there must be an assessment before there can be liability for payment.

Okay IRS guy, what's my liability so that I can pay it in full?

Oh, you don't know because you haven't made an assessment? My liability is zero. No tax due. Thank you.

Mr. Rookard is starting to get on point for the purpose of this comment line and the topic of Mr. Farnsworth's trial regarding assessment.

He stated:
An assessment is a requisite for COLLECTION by the IRS (lien and levy) ... but it IS NOT required in order for the person who must file the return to pay the tax.

And Since Mr. Farnsworth and others similarly situated (similarly cognizant of the actual words of law) are not required to make a return...

No assessment- no tax officially due- no tax need be paid- no attempt to evade taxes.

Dale seeks to word-smith his way out of the plain language of the statute.
Mr. Rookard seeks to lawyer lie and twist the statute to apply where it does not.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 12:53 pm | #

It takes time to refute Mr. Rookard's lawyer lies. It takes no time what so ever for Mr. Rookard and his ilk to post unsubstantiated assertions that contain lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations.

Returning to Mr. Rookard's statement addressed in my post above: "There is no requirement that there must be an assessment before there can be liability for payment." 

Mr. Rookard is now twisting the topic of the comment line. 

Without that assessment, you have exactly ZERO PROOF of a liability. That means the ONLY PROOF of such a liability is the voluntary self (UNOFFICIAL) assessment of a person who believes they are a "taxpayer".  And that situation DOES NOT APPLY to the Farnsworth case, which is the context of this comment line/ blog.

Mr. Rookard picks this point from all of what I posted:
"Silence equates to agreement."

Mr. Rookard then says:
I do not agree with you. There, feel better?

Let me again remind the readers of the context Mr. Rookard would have you forget:
I refer the reader to my web site pages, numbered 4 to 10 and the questions Q1 through Q74. Mr. Rookard, you are invited to answer those 74 questions and publicly post your answers. "Silence equates to agreement."

(Mr. Rookard has admitted by inference that he has read all 74 questions and the Supreme Court cites - if not, then he is ignorantly arguing something he doesn't know.)

Since Mr. Rookard states that he does not agree with me, and I said his silence equates to agreement with the results of the 74 questions;
Then;
Mr Rookard has by inference stated he does not agree with the conclusions that result from the 74 questions.

So, Mr. Rookard, what conclusion specifically do you not agree with?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 2:43 pm | #

I made this statement in the above post:
Mr. Rookard picks this point from all of what I posted:
"Silence equates to agreement."
Because of all the loose ends Mr. Rookard has chosen to ignore.
The important loose ends are these:

1. "Constitutional Income" and "Income, in its Constitutional sense."
3. Baral was a "taxpayer", as evidenced by his paying an estimated tax, and as evidenced by his submitting a tax return.
4. The rules for "taxpayers" do not apply to "nontaxpayers".
6. A "taxpayer" is a person required to make a return of tax. A "nontaxpayer" is NOT required to make a return of tax.

The reader is invited to notice that I have asked Mr. Rookard a straight up question "So, Mr. Rookard, what conclusion specifically do you not agree with?".
Please observe whether Mr. Rookard ever plainly answers that question.

I am not going to go through umpteen million questions and specifically answer each and every one of them Dale.

Dale engages in the Chris Hansen approach to argumentation ... through 5000 pages of crap at someone and tell them "unless you refute EACH AND EVERY point you agree by default". I won't be dragged down that endless road, because as I answer, Dale will want to enter into a harangue and want me to write more volumes.

I learned long ago not to enter down that road with tax protestors.

I have reviewed the questions. The conclusions drawn from Dale's assertions are false.

If you want a book of answers, I'll charge $100 per question for my time.
Brian Rookard | 02.18.06 - 10:26 am | #

Mr. Rookard states: "I am not going to go through umpteen million questions and specifically answer each and every one of them..."
Well of course not Mr. Rookard, because those SEVENTY FOUR questions highlight what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED.  If you never address those SEVENTY FOUR questions, and if you can keep the newcomer from reading those SEVENTY FOUR questions, you will have succeeded in keeping a newcomer from understanding what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED. (That would be loose end #1, what is "Constitutional Income" and "Income, in its Constitutional sense.")  Just like the church whose lying authority was challenged by Galileo, you and your ilk refuse to acknowledge what is plainly visible in the telescope. (Written words of law, that law being the written words of the statutes, regulations, and the IRREFUTABLE statements of the Supreme Court.)

Mr. Rookard throws up this wall of bullshit: "Dale engages in the Chris Hansen approach to argumentation ... through 5000 pages of crap at someone and tell them "unless you refute EACH AND EVERY point you agree by default". "
You are alleged to be a Lawyer.  Perhaps you could shed some light on something called an "interrogatory"?  My dictionary says this: "in·ter·rog·a·to·ry Law. A formal or written question, as to a witness, usually requiring an answer under oath." And then there is this:

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

Ignoring Mr. Rookard's flames, personal insults and attacks for the purpose of besmirchment:
"5000 pages of crap"
"Dale will want to enter into a harangue"
"tax protestors"

And citing Mr. Rookard's statement:  "I have reviewed the questions. The conclusions drawn from Dale's assertions are false."
The reader is invited to notice that my straight up question "So, Mr. Rookard, what conclusion specifically do you not agree with?" has not been answered.
With a broad brush, Mr. Rookard seeks to dismiss me by ridicule having NEVER addressed the substance of what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED.  If you fall for Mr. Rookard's slight of hand, he will have kept you from reading that which he really, really does not want the newcomer to read.

With the above stated, I hope it makes the following short statement more understandable for the reader.

Your admission that you can't refute the conclusions, because you can't impeach what the questions show without directly contradicting the Supreme Court is accepted.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.18.06 - 11:59 am | #

Any and all lurkers are invited to read those questions and conclusions here.

See if you agree with myself or Mr. Rookard.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.18.06 - 12:02 pm | #

Now the above statement simply undermines all of Mr. Rookard's hard work so far to keep the newcomer from reading what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED.  That means it is time for Mr. Rookard to pay attention and do damage control.

Dale, where did I admit that I couldn't refute your silly questions.

I surely *can* and *could* do it ... but like I said, as I make the attempt, you'll chime in with 50 gazillion other questions.

You're not very logical Dale.

Just because I didn't take the time to write out answers doesn't mean I didn't evaluate the questions and that I couldn't refute them *IF* I wanted to.

And just because someone doesn't take the time to go through your exercise doesn't mean that person agrees.

I know you like to pull that trick.

Here ya go Dale, unless you answer the following question within 5 seconds after I post it, your silence will be taken as agreement.

Did not the Supreme Court say that "There is no doubt that the [income tax] statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ...." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111?
Brian Rookard | 02.18.06 - 12:30 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice the ongoing flames, personal insults and attacks for the purpose of besmirchment:
"your silly questions"
"You're not very logical Dale."
"I know you like to pull that trick."

With Mr. Rookard's cheating exposed, Mr. Rookard's boast of what he "could" do is addressed:
"where did I admit that I couldn't refute"
"I surely *can* and *could* do it"
"doesn't mean ... I couldn't refute them *IF* I wanted to."

With all that spew as introduction, we finally get to a point that Mr. Rookard wants you, the reader, to believe refutes what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED.

Here then, is that issue that is supposed to make you believe Mr. Rookard has refuted the SUPREME COURT: "Did not the Supreme Court say that "There is no doubt that the [income tax] statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ...." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111?"

Your 5 seconds are up.

Therefore you agree with me and the Supreme Court that: ""There is no doubt that the [income tax] statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ...."
Brian Rookard | 02.18.06 - 12:31 pm | #

Mr. Rookard has now posted a TCP.  TCP is an acronym for Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation.  So long as the reply appears as if it is somehow connected to the topic at hand, and, so long as the reply is itself correct, it is supposed to trick the unwary into believing the point of contention has been refuted. Quite obviously Mr. Rookard, the cube root of 125 equals 5, therefore you are wrong in stating that "Constitutional income" or "income in its Constitutional sense" is anything other than what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED.

Are you done trying to play that little game Dale?
Brian Rookard | 02.18.06 - 12:31 pm | #

Are you done playing the TCP game, Mr. Rookard?

Oh, and dear reader, please note that the above post was another flame, personal insult or attack for the purpose of besmirchment.

In the following post, I start to address Mr. Rookard's methods of cheating in debates, then I delve into the meat of the Lucas v. Earl NON-applicability to the normal citizen... A point that you will watch Mr. Rookard completely ignore.

Notice to lurkers: Please pay attention to how much time, and how many words, Mr. Rookard is now going to spend attacking me, demeaning me, and attempting to ridicule those questions in an effort to keep you from reading them.

Dale, where did I admit that I couldn't refute your silly questions.

Adj. silly. Meant to heap scorn in an attempt to keep others from reading the questions.
They're "silly" so no reason to read them.
That approach always backfires Mr. Rookard.
Thank you for using it.

Dale, where did I admit that I couldn't refute your silly questions.

Here:
I am not going to go through umpteen million questions and specifically answer each and every one of them Dale.

I surely *can* and *could* do it
An assertion that is unsubstantiated until you "do" do it.
And until you "refute" my "silly questions", well, you haven't refuted anything, have you?

You're not very logical Dale.
Ad hominem personal attack. Unsubstantiated assertion.
Attempt to discredit myself, again, for the purpose of deflecting the reader from reading those questions.

Just because I didn't take the time to write out answers doesn't mean I didn't evaluate the questions and that I couldn't refute them *IF* I wanted to.
Until you refute them, they're unrefuted.
Until you refute them, you haven't proven that you could "refute them *IF* [you] wanted to.
So, all you have done is made another unsubstantiated assertion.

And just because someone doesn't take the time to go through your exercise doesn't mean that person agrees.
You are absolutely correct there, Mr. Rookard.
I know you don't agree.
I also know that the reason no quatloser will go through this exercise is because they can't refute the conclusions the Supreme Court itself has made on the issue.

So what does that leave somebody like you to post?

Naked assertions, ad hominem and other personal attacks in an attempt (to appear) to discredit the poster..
Oh, and the standard half lies you post to confuse those new to studying the issues.

Did not the Supreme Court say that "There is no doubt that the [income tax] statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ...." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111?

Yes, Mr. Rookard, that is exactly what the Supreme Court says.
Define "Salaries".
Define "which" salaries are taxed.
Define "who" has a salary that can be taxed.


Did not the Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 indicate the ruling was based upon "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065,..."?


Sec. 213. That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise provided in section 233) the term "gross income" —

(a) Includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services (including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as such)…

"Gross income includes (corporate) gains, (corporate) profits, and (corporate) income DERIVED from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services..."

In short words, Gross income includes X...

Gross income includes X "(including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as such)...

In short words, Gross income includes X (including in the case of [public employees], the compensation received as such [compensation for personal services]

In short words, Gross income includes in the case of public employees, compensation for personal services.

Then there's that Evans v. Gore (253 U.S. 245) case that confirms the LIMITED nature of a tax on salaries or compensation of personal services to public employees:

"The plaintiff is the United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky, and holds that office under an appointment by the President made in 1899 with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tax which he calls in question was levied under the act of February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1062, on his net income for the year 1918, as computed under that act. His compensation or salary as District Judge was included in the computation.
...
The inclusion was in obedience to a provision in section 213 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 6336 1/8ff), requiring the computation to embrace all gains, profits, income and the like, 'including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States [and others ] ... the compensation received as such.' Whether he could be subjected to such a tax in respect of his salary, consistently with the Constitution, is the matter in issue."


See where I examine the definitions of section 3401 of the current code.

3401 states:
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

And before you start your "includes" and "including" bullshit, let me pre-emptively point out that a TERM is a custom defined word. If the dictionary meaning of the WORD "employee" was left intact, it would have covered PRIVATE and PUBLIC "employees" already.
And in the case that an officer of the U.S. or an officer of D.C. or an officer of any political subdivision thereof was not included in the dictionary definition; and likewise in the case that an elected official of the U.S. or an elected official of D.C. or an elected official of any political subdivision thereof was not included in the dictionary definition;

The statute would have been stated thus:
The term employee, in addition to the normal meaning of the word, shall include officers and elected officials of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.19.06 - 2:54 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice another group of points and loose ends that Mr. Rookard is ignoring.

Mr. Rookard was asked to:
Define "Salaries".
Define "which" salaries are taxed.
Define "who" has a salary that can be taxed.

If the average person does NOT have a salary that falls within the constraints of the tax act of 1918 and the subject matter of the court case Mr. Rookard has cited, then in essence, Mr. Rookard has just told a half truth. (In other words, Mr. Rookard's statements are 100% correct in the proper context.)  Now a half truth is also a half lie. (In other words the cited court case DOES NOT APPLY to the situation as Mr. Rookard would have you believe.)  When one tells an untruth, one is a LIAR. But I digress.

The issue of my post above, is that the case, and the section of law in question, does not apply to the average person's compensation of labor.  Section 213 is very clear,  the salaries in question (salaries of public officials) are NOT income, but proceed directly to being "gross income".

Now before we come back to solid issues, I must address Mr. Rookard's next besmirchment post:

Brian says: And just because someone doesn't take the time to go through your exercise doesn't mean that person agrees.

Dale says: You are absolutely correct there, Mr. Rookard.


Thanks for admitting it Dale.

And see what I mean, ask Dale a question, and he goes into some off topic harangue dealing with a case that's been overruled.

If you want to know why I don't go down Dale's all too familiar road ... his previous post is a perfect example.
Brian Rookard | 02.19.06 - 6:49 pm | #


Mr. Rookard just loves to cut words to change the context. That means one must always be alert for Mr. Rookard's cheating, and must replace the things Mr. Rookard cuts to twist things such as lying lawyers like him are wont to do.  Here's that context:

And just because someone doesn't take the time to go through your exercise doesn't mean that person agrees.
You are absolutely correct there, Mr. Rookard.
I know you don't agree.
I also know that the reason no quatloser will go through this exercise is because they can't refute the conclusions the Supreme Court itself has made on the issue.

Ignoring Mr. Rookard's flame, personal insult or attack for the purpose of besmirchment, we will get to the point he has hidden in all the crap:
"dealing with a case that's been overruled" 

Well Mr. Rookard, you're the one that brought up Lucas v. Earl, and now you want to eliminate it for purposes of showing where you have lied.
(I am within proper bounds to make the above assumption, since Mr. Rookard didn't bother to state which case has been overruled.)

Now in the event that what Mr. Rookard was actually attacking is the Evans v. Gore case, it doesn't matter if it was overturned or not.

The reason for citing that case is to substantiate what is said in the Lucas v. Earl case, and what is said in section 213 of the statutes to which both cases dealt with. To wit:
(again): Gross income includes X "(including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as such)...
X being the corporate profit derived from ....

In other words, the questions that Mr. Rookard chose to ignore:
Define "Salaries".
Define "which" salaries are taxed.
Define "who" has a salary that can be taxed.

Are answered by those two court cases and the statute thusly:

Define "Salaries": 
Compensation paid to the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia.

Define "which" salaries are taxed:
Compensation paid to the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia.

Define "who" has a salary that can be taxed:
the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia

Because one of Mr. Rookard's main tools for cheating in online discussions is his resort to flames, personal insults and attacks for the purpose of besmirchment, I quoted myself to point out that Mr. Rookard is doing exactly what I said he would do.

Notice to lurkers: Please pay attention to how much time, and how many words, Mr. Rookard is now going to spend attacking me, demeaning me, and attempting to ridicule those questions in an effort to keep you from reading them.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.19.06 - 7:00 pm | #


The reader is invited to consider, that while the reader is engaged in wading through all sorts of flames, personal insults and attacks for the purpose of besmirchment, the reader has been distracted from reading those SEVENTY FOUR questions, which prove what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED in regard as to what is "Constitutional Income" or "Income in its Constitutional sense."

Since the questions prove what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED in regard as to what is "Constitutional Income" or "Income in its Constitutional sense", and since I know that Mr. Rookard's purpose is to keep newcomers from reading those Supreme Court passages, and the questions in regard to those passages, I started posting some of the questions in their proper context following the Supreme Court's words.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

These cases involve the constitutional validity of 38 of the act of Congress approved August 5, 1909, known as 'the corporation tax' law.

Q1. Does the Flint v. Stone Tracy case address the tax act of 1909?

Q2. Is section 38 of the tax act of 1909 known as the corporation tax law?

Q3. Then does the Flint v. Stone Tracy case address the corporation tax law?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.19.06 - 7:02 pm | #


The next 71 questions are formatted exactly the same. I cite what the supreme court states, and then I give a reading comprehension quiz on what the supreme court just cited.

Those are the questions Mr. Rookard is referring to when he said: "Just because I didn't take the time to write out answers doesn't mean I didn't evaluate the questions and that I couldn't refute them *IF* I wanted to.

So putting it together, Mr. Rookard says he could refute a quiz on reading comprehension...

The lurkers should also understand that while Mr. Rookard is doing his signature personal attacks, complete with ad hominems and naked assertions, he fails to refute that which refutes his naked assertions...

So which sentence of this post are you going to attempt to blow up out of proportion to mask the rest of the statements?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.19.06 - 7:20 pm | #


Oops, Now the newcomer is going to read those questions in this forum regardless of Mr. Rookard's attempts to distract the newcomer from those questions.
Time for Mr. Rookard to get radical or he is going to loose control of the forum.

Dale, you can answer me just one question: how many cases have tax protestors won arguing that income is limited to corporate profit?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.

And that's really all I need to say in regard to your "questions."

When you have a published win validating your argument, then we'll talk.
Brian Rookard | 02.19.06 - 9:40 pm | #

If Mr. Rookard had left it here, he might have had a propaganda coup.  (coup n. 1. A brilliantly executed stratagem; a masterstroke.)  Fortunately for those interested in truth, Mr. Rookard overplays his hand. (To be shown shortly).

To those newcomers this would have been a masterful post, because newcomers don't understand how corrupt the modern courts have become and how the modern courts bend over backwards to keep a fair hearing of the issues from in front of a jury. (That is part of the reason Mr. Jahn created the Trial logs Blogspot).

Regardless of the innuendo and appearance of a win, Mr. Rookard has NOT refuted those SEVENTY FOUR questions, which prove what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED in regard as to what is "Constitutional Income" or "Income in its Constitutional sense."

Dale, you can answer me just one question: how many cases have tax protestors won arguing that income is limited to corporate profit?

Sorry Mr. Rookard, your question is FRIVOLOUS.

Now as to those questions that you can't answer without admitting your game:

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

'Sec. 38. ... every corporation, joint stock company, or association organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares, ... shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation, joint stock company or association, ... equivalent to one per centum upon the entire net income over and above five thousand dollars, received by it from all sources during such year

Q4. Is section 38 of the tax act of 1909, known as the corporation tax law a "special excise tax"?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.19.06 - 11:03 pm | #


It was pointed out to me that this post would appear weak to the newcomers who don't know the history of the Tax Honesty Movement and Tax Honesty Researchers.  For those who know the crap the liars at the IRS are pulling, they know what the catchword "frivolous" is about.

Since the person who emailed me is correct, and since Mr. Rookard is... uh... Mr. Rookard, I decided to put this page together. Something I should have been doing all along so as to document what a.... Nevermind.... slime...

Brian says: Dale, you can answer me just one question: how many cases have tax protestors won arguing that income is limited to corporate profit?

Dale tritely responds: Sorry Mr. Rookard, your question is FRIVOLOUS.

Hahahahahahaha ... Ok Dale.

Translation - Dale knows he will lose in court.

If you can declare my question frivolous ... well, your questions are frivolous too.

When you answer my one simple question, I'll think about answering yours.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
Brian Rookard | 02.19.06 - 11:21 pm | #

If you are going to put words in my mouth then put the correct words there, Lyin' Brian.

TRANSLATION: Dale knows he will lose in A CORRUPT court.

Ignoring Mr. Rookard's flames, personal insults and attacks for the purpose of besmirchment, I posted another segment of those questions that Mr. Rookard does not want the newcomer to read:

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

While the mere declaration contained in a statute that it shall be regarded as a tax of a particular character does not make it such if it is apparent that it cannot be so designated consistently with the meaning and effect of the act, nevertheless the declaration of the lawmaking power is entitled to much weight, and in this statute the intention is expressly declared to impose a special excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation, joint stock company or association, or company.

Q5. Was the stated intention of the tax act of 1909 to impose a special excise tax on the doing of business by a corporation? (The doing of business in the corporate form?)
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.20.06 - 12:05 am | #

The reader is invited to notice the times of posting:
Mr. Rookard's attempts at ridicule: Brian Rookard | 02.19.06 - 11:21 pm |
My post ignoring Mr. Rookard's attempts at ridicule: Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.20.06 - 12:05 am | #
Followed by Mr. Rookard's next post: Brian Rookard | 02.20.06 - 7:27 am | #

The next post of Mr. Rookard's because he has realized that he has still NOT shut down those SEVENTY FOUR questions, which prove what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED in regard as to what is "Constitutional Income" or "Income in its Constitutional sense."

It is this next post of Mr. Rookard's that is most instructive as to his... Uh... debating techniques.  It is imperative to the liars at the IRS, and those such as Mr. Rookard that the newcomer doesn't learn of what the written words of law really mean.  Once a person comes to understand what those words actually mean, it becomes self evident to that person that the government does NOT follow its own rules.

Be that as it is, It is now time to address Mr. Rookard's post.

"The government has produced the plaintiff's 1997 income tax return, on which he listed his occupation as "sales agent" but reported zero income in all spaces, and to which he attached three pages of explanatory arguments (doc. # 11, ex. 1). These arguments indicate that the plaintiff believes that * * * (4) individual (as opposed to corporate) income is not "income" for purposes of the income tax statutes."

* * *

With respect to the fourth argument, the case the plaintiff cites (Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518, 41 S.Ct. 386, 65 L.Ed. 751 (1921)) indicates that "income" includes income "from capital, from labor, or from both combined" (emphasis added). The restricted definition of "income" he prefers finds no basis in federal law."

Ford v. U.S., 2003 WL 21744233 (M.D.Ala.,2003)
Brian Rookard | 02.20.06 - 7:27 am | #

Remember folks, Mr. Rookard has proven that he doesn't want the newcomer to read those SEVENTY FOUR questions, which prove what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED in regard as to what is "Constitutional Income" or "Income in its Constitutional sense."

With that said, the first question regarding Mr. Rookard's citation is, Since when does a lower court have the authority to over-rule the supreme court?
Ford v. U.S., 2003 WL 21744233 (M.D.Ala.,2003)

Also, for a lawyer, the italicized cite may be fine. For those of us non-lawyers on the internet, if you don't provide a link to a reputable source that has the cited court case in its entirety, there is absolutely no proof that the court case says what you claim it does.  And specifically in the example cited, there are misrepresentations of what certain citations actually say.  Without the citation hyperlinked for easy verification, it makes it near impossible to determine if you are the liar, or the court is the liar...

For those new to the issue, By 2003, the word was already out to the courts to keep the truth out of the courtroom.

The liar, er lower court states:
"the case the plaintiff cites (Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka...) indicates that "income" includes income "from capital, from labor, or from both combined" (emphasis added)."

Let us compare that to the actual wording in the PROPER IN CONTEXT of the Smietanka case, and the Stratton's case that Smietanka cites.

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, 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

Q48.  Was the definition of the word "income" necessary for administering the Corporate Tax Act of 1909?

Q49.  In that early case (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert), was the definition of "income" formulated as "A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined"?

Q50.  Is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,  corporate gain?  (See the Stratton's page.)

There's 3 of those 74 questions that Mr. Rookard doesn't want the newcomer to read.

Now we have to take a look at the Stratton's case that Merchants' is citing:

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

The resulting judgment having been removed by writ of error to the circuit court of appeals, that court certifies that the following questions of law are presented to it, the decision of which is indispensable to a determination of the cause, and upon which it therefore desires the instruction of this court:

'II. Are the proceeds of ores mined by a corporation from its own premises income within the meaning of the aforementioned act of Congress?

Q21.  Is the cited question of law (II), a question in regard to the word "income" within the meaning of the 1909 tax act of Congress?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy

Q22.  Is the tax act of 1909 NOT an income tax law?

Q23.  Is the tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity?

Q24.  Is "income" merely the "measure" of the tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity?

Q25.  If "income" is the "measure" of "corporate" activity, doesn't this mean that such income MUST be corporate income?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

But when a company is digging pits, sinking shafts, tunneling, drifting, stoping, drilling, blasting, and hoisting ores, it is employing capital and labor in transmuting a part of the realty into personalty, and putting it into marketable form.

Q26.  When a company (corporation) does stuff (operates), is it "employing capital and labor"?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

But when a company is digging pits, sinking shafts, tunneling, drifting, stoping, drilling, blasting, and hoisting ores, it is employing capital and labor in transmuting a part of the realty into personalty, and putting it into marketable form.  The very process of mining is, in a sense, equivalent in its results to a manufacturing process. And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909...

Q27.  Is a company employing capital and/or labor "indubitably [unquestionably] 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909"?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business...

Q28.  When a company employs capital and labor to do stuff (Q26), and the doing of stuff is business within the act of 1909 (Q27), is the gain derived from such doing of stuff (business) the income from that business?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from that business; for 'income' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor.

Q29a.  When a company employs capital and labor to do stuff (Q26), and the doing of stuff is business within the act of 1909 (Q27), and the gain derived from such doing of stuff (business) is the income from such doing of stuff (business)(Q28), and "income" may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, Then doesn't this mean:  The deriving of gain from capital, from labor, or from both combined is the result of the employing of capital and(/or) labor?

Q29b.  Restated:  Is the deriving of gain from capital, from labor, or from both combined the result of the employing of capital and(/or) labor?

Q30.  Is "income" defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined by a company (corporation) "employing" capital and(/or) labor?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

'II. Are the proceeds of ores mined by a corporation from its own premises income within the meaning of the aforementioned act of Congress?

It seems to us that the first two questions certified must be answered in the affirmative principally for two reasons.

Q31.  Does the Stratton's Supreme Court decision answer the second question (II) yes; The proceeds of ores mined by a corporation are income within the 1909 corporate tax act?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

'II. Are the proceeds of ores mined by a corporation from its own premises income within the meaning of the aforementioned act of Congress?
...

It seems to us that the first two questions certified must be answered in the affirmative principally for two reasons. First, because mining corporations are within the general description of 38, which comprises 'every corporation, joint stock company, or association organized for profit, and having a capital stock represented by shares , . . . and engaged in business in any state or territory of the United States;'

Q32.  Is a reason the proceeds (money from the sale) of ores mined are income within the meaning of the 1909 tax act because the ores are being mined and sold by a corporation that is within the description of section 38 of the tax act of 1909?

Q33.  Does this mean that if the corporation was NOT within the description of section 38 of the tax act of 1909, proceeds (money from the sale) of any product of such a corporation would NOT be within the definition of "income" in the tax act of 1909?

Q34.  If a Natural Person is NOT within the description of section 38 of the tax act of 1909, then is it likewise a fact that proceeds of any action going to such a Natural Person would NOT be within the definition of "income" in the tax act of 1909?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

Moreover, the section imposes 'a special excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation,' etc. That mining companies are doing business, within the fair intent and meaning of this clause, seems to us entirely plain, for reasons already given. The conduct of such business results in profit, for it cannot be seriously contended that the ores are not worth more at the mine mouth than they were worth in the ground, plus the cost of mining.

Q35.  Does the section (38 of the 1909 tax act) impose a "special excise tax" with respect to doing business in the corporate form?

Q36.  Does such doing of business in the corporate form result in corporate profit (when there is not a corporate loss)?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government.

Q37.  Is the measure of the tax the measure of benefit from doing business in the corporate form?

Q38.  If "income" is the "measure" of "corporate" benefit, doesn't this mean that such income MUST be corporate income?

Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

But when a company is digging pits, sinking shafts, tunneling, drifting, stoping, drilling, blasting, and hoisting ores, it is employing capital and labor in transmuting a part of the realty into personalty, and putting it into marketable form.  The very process of mining is, in a sense, equivalent in its results to a manufacturing process. And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909...

With the above Supreme Court statements under your belt, you, the reader are ready to look at the first part of Mr. Rookard's citation:
"The government has produced the plaintiff's 1997 income tax return, on which he listed his occupation as "sales agent" but reported zero income in all spaces, and to which he attached three pages of explanatory arguments (doc. # 11, ex. 1). These arguments indicate that the plaintiff believes that * * * (4) individual (as opposed to corporate) income is not "income" for purposes of the income tax statutes."

First off, Plaintiff, by filing a 1997 income tax return has admitted to being a "taxpayer".  "Nontaxpayers" do not file returns.
Second, "three pages of explanatory arguments (doc. # 11, ex. 1)" are NOT in evidence in this posting by Mr. Rookard.  As this court has already misrepresented, and lied about issues, this synopsis of what the "three pages of explanatory arguments" is highly suspect already.
Third, as to the stated synopsis; "plaintiff believes that * * * (4) individual (as opposed to corporate) income is not "income" for purposes of the income tax statutes."  This is a mis-wording of anybody that has studied the government lies.  I myself, through a thorough examination of what "INCOME" actually is, would have to object to such a court sponsered lie.  If I were the plaintiff, the proper wording would be (4) individual compensation for labor, or individual revenue, is NOT "Constitutional Income" or "Income, in its Constitutional Sense".  I can prove that ONLY CORPORATE INCOME is "Constitutional Income" or "Income, in its Constitutional Sense".  I do so with those those SEVENTY FOUR questions, which prove what the SUPREME COURT has IRREFUTABLY STATED in regard as to what is "Constitutional Income" or "Income in its Constitutional sense."

Which brings us to the lie of misdirection: "The restricted definition of "income" he prefers finds no basis in federal law."
That is because THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF "INCOME" ALLOWED IN THE FEDERAL LAW.


Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

Q56.  Is the meaning of the word "income" to be given the same meaning in ALL of the income tax acts of Congress?

Q57.  As of this point in time (1921), and as of this point in the examination of the minutia of the Merchants' Loan decision, is the meaning of the word "income" definitely settled by the Supreme Court decisions?

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted....

Q58.  Has the Supreme Court nailed down what the meaning is for the word "income"?

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.; Eisner v. Macomber.

Q59.  Are the definitions quoted, (A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets) the "commonly understood meaning of the term" "income" when the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913?

Q60.  According to Q42 on the Doyle page (Doyle v. Mitchell cited in the passage of Merchants' just above), Is the definition of income,  as used in the Doyle case, the gain or increase arising from corporate activities?

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.
...

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form.


Q66.  Does the determination of what is income and what is NOT income have Constitutional ramifications?

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

[I]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form.

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

Q67.  Can Congress conclude what is, and what is not income according to the Sixteenth Amendment by adopting different defintions as the mood strikes them?

Q68.  If Congress is limited from adopting whatever definition they want for the Sixteenth Amendment income, could it be said that the Sixteenth Amendment definition is a Constitutional definition?

Which brings us to the lie of misdirection: "The restricted definition of "income" he prefers finds no basis in federal law."
That is because THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF "INCOME" ALLOWED IN THE FEDERAL LAW.

Mr. Rookard's 02.20.06 - 7:27 am post has been addressed, as well as his ongoing spin.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.21.06 - 6:44 pm | #

Dale, I don't need to spin anything.

The courts are quite clear - your "income is a corporate gain" type argument is a sure loser.

Too bad you're not man enough to admit it.

Of course, quoting the court decisions which show that Dale's argument will never win is now "spin".
Brian Rookard | 02.21.06 - 10:04 pm | #

The reader is invited to notice that Mr. Rookard has again ignored key questions. In this case: Since when does a lower court have the authority to over-rule the supreme court?
Ford v. U.S., 2003 WL 21744233 (M.D.Ala.,2003)

Correcting the buggered hyperlink:
Mr. Rookard's 02.20.06 - 7:27 am post has been addressed, as well as his ongoing spin.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.21.06 - 11:37 pm | #

The courts are quite clear - your "income is a corporate gain" type argument is a sure loser.

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.21.06 - 11:40 pm | #


And the reader is again invited to notice that Mr. Rookard has again ignored key questions. In this case: Since when does a lower court have the authority to over-rule the supreme court?
Ford v. U.S., 2003 WL 21744233 (M.D.Ala.,2003)

Uh, Dale ... put down the crack pipe ... I posted court cases where people made the same type argument that you made on your webpages.

But hey ... don't let the facts deter you from just claiming that no proof was offered.
Brian Rookard | 02.21.06 - 11:50 pm | #

Good comeback.... If we were having a insult yo mamma contest.

Just close your eyes Dale ... those court cases, and numerous other ones just like it, will go away if you just keep telling yourself it's all just one big dream.
Brian Rookard | 02.21.06 - 11:52 pm | #

Oh, you mean the lower court case that you cited that we are all supposed to believe overturns the Supreme Court?

Hey Dale ... by the way, you incorrectly post in your little website that I'm trying to prevent people from seeing your questions ... of course, I could care less if people read your questions ... let 'em read them ... I just told you I wasn't going to chase you down your rabbit hole and answer your questions because it will turn into the never ending procession of questions.

But hey, spin it how you want.

The intellectually honest people aren't fooled.
Brian Rookard | 02.21.06 - 11:57 pm | #

I apologize for fooling you Mr. Rookard.  What do you need me to explain to you?

What is "income, in its constitutional sense"?

What is "Constitutional income"?

Where exactly in title 26 is the term "income" defined?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 12:02 am | #

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to honestly answer these three questions.

Next page

Table of Contents