User talk:Bobhurt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Florida Supreme Court, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Florida Supreme Court. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Florida Supreme Court appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.
Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Florida Supreme Court, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

Hey we're back[edit]

Dear Bobhurt:

Howdy. I hadn't forgotten about you. Yes, I guess it was in May that we last communicated. I'm still intending to address your earlier comments, as well as the ones you posted today. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt:

The following is basically materials I inserted on my own talk page earlier today:

Regarding the materials you posted on my talk page, it appears someone is taking you for a ride. The Robert Lawrence case has been the subject of comments at various tax protester web sites in the past few weeks, much of the comments consisting of the same sort of false or otherwise misleading material I see all the time. For example, the statement "Attorney Oscar Stilley sabotaged the DOJ with an eleventh-hour motion for dismissal based on the fact that the 1040 did not bear an illegal OMB control number, and therby violated the APA" is I'm sure based on stuff you've read in the web sites or other tax protest literature. The statement is incorrect. Mr. Stilley did make such a late motion -- but that's not why the case was dismissed.


You see, I have access to the court record in the Lawrence case. The IRS agents who had calculated Mr. Lawrence's tax liability discovered errors they themselves had made -- based on information obtained from Lawrence's own tax returns, regarding the taxpayer's tax basis in certain property Lawrence had sold. (Tax basis is basically the amount that you paid for something, subject to certain adjustments. The amount realized on a sale less your tax basis amount equals your gain. If the tax basis amount exceeds the amount realized, then you have a loss.) With respect to certain properties the taxpayer had sold, the IRS agents discovered that he had more tax basis than they had originally calculated -- therefore, lower gains or even losses, and thus lower taxes. The IRS agents themselves brought their errors to the attention of the government lawyers, who then asked that the charges be dropped (and they were). The IRS employees recognized that their calculations had incorrectly Lawrence's tax liability. I'm leaving out a lot of the detail here, and I haven't read all the documents yet. I'll fill in more detail later, as I learn more about the case. Suffice to say, things usually are not what they appear to be when you're reading tax protester literature!

The other comments you made will also be addressed (the "federal zone," court jurisdiction, etc.). Yours, Famspear 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PRA[edit]

Famspear, I hope you carefully read the PRA assessment below, and then insert the appropriate information into the income tax page. I believe Lindsey Springer authored it because the author refers to Lindsey's website [1]. Robert Lawrence forwarded it to me because I asked him to send me something of value. I have sent your comments to him and asked for him to set the record straight, but I do not expect him to do it - he seems a little secretive, understandably.

Bottom line, it clearly shows the PRA defense intended by Lawrence's legal team, which I believe consisted of Attorney Oscar Stilley and Paralegal Lindsey Springer. They seemed to have intended to attack the 1040 filing requirement on the basis that the information gathering activity falls under the obligations imposed by the Paperwork Reduction Act, and that the 1040 form fails utterly to comply with the law, so that provides a complete defense against any penalty for failing to use it to file a tax return.

Furthermore, Stilley has caught the humbuggers at the OMB with their pants down - without rhyme or reason they appear to have approved the same OMB control number for a whole family of 1040-related forms. I believe the folks at the OMB have lost their minds and their integrity. Bob Hurt 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)



44 U.S.C. 3512 states as follows:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if— (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or (2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number. (b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.


This section is called the "public protection" clause. It's important to read it carefully. I've emboldened pertinent parts of the text. It's very potent.

Now, let's look at certain parts of the text.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law: It's interesting that any other requirement set forth in the IRC, or elsewhere, is subject to this protection if it involves a form subject to the PRA.

For instance, the government has 'carved out' an exception for the 1040 form by asserting a 'statutory origin theory.' See Wunder (6th), Hicks (9th) and Neff (11th). Each of these asserted IRC 6012 was the statute that required the making of a return, and the Paperwork Reduction Act [of 1980] did not set aside the requirement that arose by statute.

In other words, the statute was not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and that's a true statement. However, each of these cases [starting with Wunder] also asserted the forms themselves had a requirement to display a "current" control number.

That language is important, because the word "current" was used in the text of section 3512 in the 1980 PRA but was changed to "valid" in the 1995 Act. The tax years at issue in the preceding cases were 1981 through 1986. It would not have been evident if the control number was "valid" or "current" under the case law at the time.

However, after twenty-five years of using the same OMB number, it becomes more glaringly evident there are problems with how the IRS has used the number. Apparently, they treat OMB # 1545-0074 as a "never-expiring" control number.

Yes, in accordance with this subchapter, the IRS has requested approval of a currently-approved control number, as required at 44 U.S.C. 3507(g), but other conditions in accordance with this subchapter become more important when considering the concept of "validity."

For instance, consider the provisions at 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The collection of information itself must contain the notice required by 44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(2) in order to be compliant with the PRA. Or, consider the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3507(h)(3) and (a)(1)(C), then ask yourself why the IRS does not reveal the statute for the "exemption amount" required by IRC 6012 & 151(d). See Form OMB 83-I or OMB 83-C.

In point of fact, the 'statutory origin theory' did not include the language in IRC 6012 concerning the "exemption amount" at 151(d). The importance of that is the 'statutory origin theory,' as it would currently stand, had not been tested in court until Stumpo v. Commissioner (6th), and similar cases. It is still being tested.

See 5 CFR 1320.6(e):

(e) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute--e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6938(c) (statutory requirement for person to provide notification before exporting hazardous waste).

Notice, instead of IRC 6012, as alleged in the 'statutory origin theory' case law, the government is asserting here the statutory requirement arises at IRC 6011(a). The Commissioner in his "Disclosure, Privacy Act, Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, says it's sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. So, which is it?

IRC 6011(a) reads as follows:

(a) General rule When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

Look carefully at the text above. Where is the statutory requirement? It's based on the Secretary prescribing regulations. How can a 'statutory origin theory' depend on regulations and remain statutory?

And, go look at the regulations for IRC 6011(a). They say exactly nothing! There is no statutory requirement for Form 1040, and that's what we're talking about. Yes, I know, you asked about Form W-4, but I'm laying a groundwork, so you can more clearly understand where your argument must go.

The question is whether the 1040 form is subject to this subchapter and whether it was issued in accordance with this subchapter. The question is whether the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act or whether they think they are excepted from compliance. They certainly act as though they are excepted.

However, looking at the Legislative History for the 1995 PRA, Congressional Record Volume 141 (1995), pages 171, 172, we read:

The Act strengthened the Federal Reports Act paperwork clearance process by: (1) consolidating paperwork control in OMB; (2) eliminating exemptions from review for several agencies (e.g., the Internal Revenue Service) and collections (e.g., recordkeeping requirements); (3) requiring agencies to eliminate duplication, minimize burden, and develop plans for using the information before they request OMB approval of proposed information collections; and (4) creating a "public protection provision" providing that no penalty may be imposed on a person who fails to respond to an unapproved paperwork requirement.


So, there you have it. The legislative intent of Congress was for no agency, the IRS in particular, to have an exemption or exception. And, the elimination of exemptions was extended to the collections themselves. The same is confirmed at page 187 where it states, [The Act is] "consistent with the original intent of the 1980 Act to eliminate exemptions from paperwork clearance."

The government wants you to believe, because OMB # 1545-0074 is posted on the OMB website as being currently valid, it's valid, but that addresses none of the problems with the number.

How can the exact same number be used with little or no change for twenty-five years? How can the exact same number be used for a form on which neither the statute, nor the formula or amount, for the standard deduction or exemption amount is ever disclosed to OMB? How can the exact same number be used on a collection of information when the notice required at 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii) is placed in the Instruction Book, which has no requirement for a control number?

Consider Pond v. Commissioner (10th):

Pond suggests that he cannot be penalized for failing to file the 1040, because the 1040 is a collection of information covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act. He contends the 1040 bears neither of the items required by the Act: 1) a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or 2) proper notice that a person is not required to respond unless a valid control number is displayed. The Tax Court found Pond's arguments frivolous, addressed neither argument, and threatened him with future sanctions for bringing similarly frivolous arguments in subsequent proceedings.

The Supreme Court, however, has made clear that tax forms such as the 1040 are information collection requests within the meaning of the Act. Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990) ... see United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630 n.12 (10th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we need to ask whether the 1040 form is excepted from the two requirements set out above in 44 U.S.C. § 3512 and, if not, whether the 1040 complies with those requirements.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held an argument based upon the Paperwork Reduction Act cannot be considered "frivolous," without consideration of two questions. The proper focus should be placed on 1) whether the 1040 form is excepted from the two requirements set out in 44 U.S.C. § 3512 or 2) whether it complies with those requirements.

Before we leave the discussion, let's look at subsection (b):


(b)The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

A complete defense, bar, or otherwise! A bar is a prohibition. A complete defense tells me it goes to every objection that could be made, and it tells me it applies to both civil and criminal penalty. Go look at the definition of penalty at 5 CFR 1320.3(j). See it it applies to any penalty.

This defense can be raised at any time in any circumstance in any environment under any means available to the public. Start asking questions.

So, now, having looked at the "public protection" clause, how does this apply to Form W-4?

Well, first of all, for twenty-four years [since January 1981] Form W-4 displayed OMB # 1545-0010. In August 2004, the IRS made a request for revision of a currently approved collection on OMB 83-I for Form W-4, which would have taken the approval of OMB # 1545-0010 through August 2007.

2005 W-4 Form

However, in August 2005, the IRS published notice in the Federal Register of a "New Burden," [FR Vol. 70, No. 130, page 39550] in which they made the determination they would assign OMB # 1545-0074 [the control number for Form 1040] to the entire 1040 Series of Forms, including Form W-4. The exact same number would now be displayed on Forms 1040A, 1040ES, 1040EZ, 1040X, 2555, 1310, 2106, 4835, W-4, W-5, W-7 and a few others.

W-4 Form

The questions are, "Was this 'New Burden' approved by OMB? Was OMB involved in the approval? Did the IRS submit OMB 83-I or 83-C? Did OMB simply 'rubber-stamp' the use of OMB # 1545-0074? And, how long have they been doing that? How long have they turned their head?"

I suppose you can see where we might go with this argument. If the IRS has decided not to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, then stop the pretense and take all OMB control numbers off the forms? Quit publishing the 'Disclosure, Privacy Act, Paperwork Reduction Act Notice,' and stop telling the public they have no requirement to comply with a collection of information if it doesn't comply when you have no intention to comply?

In regard to Paperwork Reduction Act requirements for Form W-4, remember, there is no existing case law. All the case law applies to Form 1040 only. And, you'd have to gather evidence of violations by seeking Forms OMB 83-I and 83-C, and their antecedents SF-83.

Whatever argument you might make for Form W-4, you would need to make a connection to Form 1040, and whether you'd have success making the argument with the employer is doubtful. You'd have to litigate your dispute in district court. Don't screw it up!

To end this discussion, let me direct you to [2] where you can ask more questions and find more answers.

If I have not answered your questions, at least I have given you a lot to consider. Best wishes in whatever you do. Keep on PRAying.


Income Tax - Important Case Law - Introduction[edit]

Famspear, I believe you should scrutinize the following case law and use it to build a proper picture of the nature of the income tax on Wikipedia. Before lecturing me on your broad experience and how the DOJ nearly universally obliterates tax protesters in court, remember that federal courts cannot help being totally crooked because of the DOJ's massive resources, the IRS ability to intimidate judges (yes I have heard reports that DOJ attorneys scream at and vilify judges with impunity)and jurors, and judges routinely do not let the juries hear important evidence that would exonerate the vast majority of IRS defendants. Bottom line, tax defendants have no possibility of obtaining a fair trial, and I believe the Supreme Court rulings prove it. They very clearly showed a strange and unique nature to the income tax over a hundred years ago, often seeming so convoluted in expression as to defy understanding.

Now, I believe the income tax applies only inside the federal zone and applies only to money received from doing a taxable activity. I also believe Congress never created the IRS and therefore the IRS does not operate as a bona fide government agency. If I am wrong and the IRS is a legitimate agency, then I believe the IRS violates 4 USC 72 by operating offices inside the union states even though Congress has never authorized it. And I have incontrovertible proof from a number of associates who have obtained their Individual Master Files from the IRS that the IRS routinely lies about the residence and occupations of people so as to justify imposing an income tax upon them. Furthermore I believe you, in spite of your knowledge and experience, stand ignorant of this reality, and that explains your Polly Anna attitude toward the IRS.

I see the IRS as an enormous criminal conspiracy that robs Americans of over a trillion dollars a year, and I see the President as its "capo di tuti capi."

I see the local county clerks and sheriffs as terrible offenders of Citizens' rights, failing to honor their loyalty oaths, denying due process to victims of the IRS, and refusing to arrest IRS criminals for filing fraudulent notices of federal tax lien and sending fraudulent notices of levies to victims' banks and employers.

And, saddest of all, I see people like you as elitist apologists for the world's largest criminal racketeering organization. You seem determined to block the efforts of IRS victims to state their facts on Wikipedia, to denigrate them as though they, not the IRS, have committed crimes (they've done jail time so they must be criminals), or as though they simply do not have the facts, intelligence, and integrity to tell the straight truth.

I want Wikipedia to balance the playing field by assigning bright, educated opponents of the IRS to assist in maintaining the Wikipedia Income Tax page and related pages. You might start with Irwin Schiff, Bob Schulz, attorney Larry Becraft, or attorney Tommy Cryer. Many brilliant men and women prepared excellent cases, but met their doom in the kangaroo federal courts that the IRS and DOJ have rigged to thwart justice.

Don't get me wrong Famspear. I appreciate the many hours you spend improving the quality fo the Income Tax pages, but the quality means nothing unless you tell the truth about the utterly criminal nature of the implementation of Income Tax in the USA.

You might, for example, try explaining why the US Government does not exercise its direct taxation powers granted by the Constitution. Surely it Congress would have an easy time raising the money it need for operating expenses from the 50 state legislatures directly, and from the people of the Federal Zone and territorial possessions indirectly. Why does Congress not operat its own taxation agency? Why has it abrogated that responsibility and handed it to the Executive Branch when it has no authority to do so?

You might try explaining how Congress has taxing authority outside the Federal Zone limitations of Article I Section 8 Clause 17 when no other provision allows Congress such authority outside the Federal Zone and when the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly limit Congress to its enumerated powers.

You might try explaining why the DOJ has a 94+% conviction rate in income tax crimes cases.

Now, I present you with some case law for filtering and posting on the income tax pages.

COURT RULINGS RELATING TO INCOME TAXES[edit]

SUPREME COURT CASES:[edit]

a.. 1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S.336. Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America: 1. The "federal zone" and 2. "the 50 States". The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the "federal zone". "The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

a.. 1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property.. "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

a.. 1894: Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211. Restricts jurisdiction of the federal government inside the states. "The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

a.. 1895: Pollack v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601. Prohibits direct taxes on the income of individuals.

b.. 1900: Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41. Defines the meaning of "direct taxes". "Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event as an exchange."

a.. 1901: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. Establishes that constitutional limits on the Congress do not apply within the "federal zone" and described where they do apply. "CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS [Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION"

a.. 1906: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. Defined the distinction between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 5th Amendment protections within the U.S. Constitution. "...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges. "

b.. 1911: Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107. Defined excise taxes as taxes laid on corporations and corporate privileges, not in natural persons.

"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking...Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations.. the tax must be measured by some standard...It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable."

a.. 1914: Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383. Established that illegally obtained evidence may not be used by the court or admitted into evidence. This case is very useful in refuting the use by the IRS of income tax returns that were submitted involuntarily (note that these returns must say "submitted under compulsion in violation of 5th Amendment rights" or some such thing at the bottom.

"The effect of the 4th Amendment is to put the courts [232 U.S. 383, 392] of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.

The case in the aspect in which we are dealing with it involves the right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused, seized in his house in his absence and without his authority, by a United States marshal holding no warrant for his arrest and none for the search of his premises. The accused, without awaiting his trial, made timely application to the court for an order for the return of these letters, as well or other property. This application was denied, the letters retained and put in evidence, after a further application at the beginning of the trial, both applications asserting the rights of the accused under the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established be years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. The United States marshal could only have invaded the house of the accused when armed with a warrant issued as required by the Constitution, upon sworn information, and describing with reasonable particularity the thing for which the search was to be made. Instead, he acted without sanction of law, doubtless prompted by the desire to bring further proof to the aid of the government, and under color of his office undertook to make a seizure of private papers in direct violation of the constitutional prohibition against such action. Under such circumstances, without sworn information and particular description, not even an order of court would (232 U.S. 383, 394) have justified such procedure; much less was it within the authority of the United States marshal to thus invade the house and privacy of the accused. In Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 , 48 L. ed. 575, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372, this court said that the 4th Amendment was intended to secure the citizen in person and property against unlawful invasion of the sanctity of his home by officers of the law, acting under legislative or judicial sanction. This protection is equally extended to the action of the government and officers of the law acting under it. Boyd Case, 116 U.S. 616 , 29 L. ed. 746, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524. To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.

b.. 1916: Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1. Established that the 16th Amendment had no affect on the constitution, and that income taxes could only be sustained as excise taxes and not as direct taxes.

"...the proposition and the contentions under (the 16th Amendment)...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned; This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

Moreover in addition the Conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

.....the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."

.....the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution -- a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes...

Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the Conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

c.. 1916: Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103. Declared that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation to the U.S. government, but simply prevented income taxes from being taken out of the category of indirect (excise) taxes to which they inherently belonged.

"..by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

a.. 1918: Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165. Stated that the 16th Amendment does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but removed the need to apportion direct taxes on income. The plaintiff is a domestic corporation chiefly engaged in buying goods in the several states, shipping them to foreign countries and there selling them. In 1914 its net income from this business was $30,173.66, and from other sources $12,436.24. An income tax for that year, computed on the aggregate of these sums, was assessed against it and paid under compulsion. It is conceded that so much of the tax as was based on the income from other sources was valid, and the controversy is over so much of it as was attributable to the income from shipping goods to foreign countries and there selling them.

The tax was levied under the Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, 11, 38 Stat. 166, 172, which provided for annually subjecting every domestic corporation to the payment of a tax of a specified per centum of its 'entire net income arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year.' Certain fraternal and other corporations, as also income from certain enumerated sources, were specifically excepted, but none of the exceptions included the plaintiff or any part of its income. So, tested merely by the terms of the act, the tax collected from the plaintiff was rightly computed on its total net income. But as the act obviously could not impose a tax forbidden by the Constitution, we proceed to consider whether the tax, or rather the part in question, was forbidden by the constitutional provision on which the plaintiff relies.

The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes [247 U.S. 165, 173] laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113, 36 Sup. Ct. 278.

b.. 1920: Evens v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245. Overturned by O'Malley v. Woodrough (307 U.S. 277). Court ruled that income taxes on federal judges were unconstitutional.

"After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " [A direct tax on salary income of a federal judge]

a.. 1920: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189. Defined income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment as "profit". Prohibited direct, unapportioned taxation of income of a stockholder.

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. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c. 349, 27), it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by article 1, 2, cl. 3, and section 9, cl. 4, of the original Constitution.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S. 189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.

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.


After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.


Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.

a.. 1922: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20. Prohibited Congress from legislating or controlling benefits that employers provide to their employees. A major blow against socialism in America!

"Out of a proper respect for the acts of a co-ordinate branch of the government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting, from the weight of the tax, it was intended to destroy its subject. But in the act before [259 U.S. 20, 38] us the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states. "

a.. 1924: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to tax the income received by a native citizen of the United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad and that the constitutional prohibition of unapportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not apply in foreign countries.

b.. 1930: Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111. The Supreme Court ruled that wages and compensation for personal services were not to be taxed in their entirety, but instead, the gain or profit derived indirectly from them.

c.. 1935: Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company, 295 U.S. 330. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress that it has no constitutional authority whatsoever to legislate for the social welfare of the worker. The result was that when Social Security was instituted, it had to be treated as strictly voluntary.

"The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the comfort and satisfaction of his employees, seems endless.

Provisions for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things?

Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of Congressional power."

a.. 1938: Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303. Ruled that disputes over uncertainties in the tax code should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. "In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that... if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..."

a.. 1939: O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277. Overturned portions of Evens v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, but not the part about the 16th Amendment. "However, the meaning which Evans v. Gore, supra, imputed to the history which explains Article III, 1 was contrary to the way in which it was read by other English-speaking courts.[1] The decision met wide and steadily growing disfavor from legal scholarship and professional opinion. Evans v. Gore, supra, itself was rejected by most of the courts before whom the matter came after that decision[2]"

a.. 1945: Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652. Ruled that there are three distinct and separate definitions for the term "United States". The income tax only applies to one of the three definitions! "The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672] tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

a.. 1959: Flora v. United, 362 US 145. Ruled that our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not on force or coercion. "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

a.. 1961: James v. United States, 366 US 213, p. 213, 6L Ed 2d 246. Income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment must derive from a "source". Also established that embezzled money is taxable as income. ".the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived." Helvering v. Clifford, 309 US 331, 334; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 US 1,9. It has long been settled that Congress' broad statutory definitions of taxable income were intended "to use the full measure of taxing power." The Sixteenth Amendment is to be taken as written and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used." Edwards v. Cuba R. Co. 268 US 628, 631 [From separate opinion by Whittaker, Black, and Douglas, JJ.] (Emphasis added)

a.. 1970: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748. Supreme Court ruled that: "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." b.. 1975: Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648. Supreme Court ruled that income taxes constitute the compelled testimony of a witness: "The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness." "Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a 'witness' before a grand jury."

c.. 1978: Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21. Established that wages and income are NOT equivalent as far as taxes on income are concerned. "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies. Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967); Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971); Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971); Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967)."

a.. 1985: U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605. The production of evidence or subpoenad tax documents cannot be compelled. "We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the contents of the subpoenaed documents were privileged under the Fifth Amendment. The act of producing the documents at issue in this case is privileged and cannot be compelled without a statutory grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 6002 and 6003."

a.. 1991: Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192. Held that if the defendant has a subjective good faith belief no matter how unreasonable, that he or she was not required to file a tax return, the government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully in not filing an income tax return. In other words, that the defendant shirked a legal duty that he knew existed. b.. 1992: United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 119 L Ed 2d 34, 112 S Ct. 1867. Court held that income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment must come from a "source". Congress's intent through § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USCS § 61(a))--which provides that gross income means all income from whatever source derived, subject to only the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code...and § 61(a)'s statutory precursors..."

a.. 1995: U.S. v. Lopez, 000 U.S. U10287. Establishes strict limits on the constitutional power and jurisdiction of the federal government inside the 50 States. "We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid. The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3. The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824):

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." Id., at 196. The Gibbons Court, however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.

"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

"Comprehensive as the word `among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. . . . The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State." Id., at 194-195.

For nearly a century thereafter, the Court's Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 573-575 (1853) (upholding a state-created steamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internal commerce); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 17, 20-22 (1888) (upholding a state prohibition on the manufacture of intoxicating liquor because the commerce power "does not comprehend the purely domestic commerce of a State which is carried on between man and man within a State or between different parts of the same State"); see also L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 306 (2d ed. 1988). Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 121 (1942) (describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence).


Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Perez v. United States, supra, at 150; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., supra, at 276-277.

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. See, e.g., Darby, 312 U.S., at 114 ; Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, at 256 ("`[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.'" (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491 (1917)).

Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. See, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 ("[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. 32), or . . . thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. 659)").

Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S., at 37 , i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CASES:[edit]

a.. U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977) "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct...If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately"

a.. Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981) "Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"

a.. Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981) "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large. It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority" a.. Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (Ct. Cl. 1972) "Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."

a.. Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 "The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws."

a.. Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931) "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

a.. U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976) "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code


Bob Hurt 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Bob Hurt: Wow, where have you been? It's been a while since I've heard from you.
Regarding your commentary that you inserted below my commentary on the 25 cent psychology lesson on my User page: I moved your commentary to my user talk page. Here: [3]
I'm sorry you were upset with my 25 cent psychology lesson.
Regarding the material you posted above, which runs to something like sixteen pages on my printer, I wish you had saved your effort. Large chunks of this material have repeatedly been posted by tax protesters at various places in Wikipedia. The material is copied virtually verbatim -- even repeating the commentary with the same errors in spelling. Much of this stuff has been passed around among tax protesters for years, is old and stale, and has been thoroughly discredited. Almost none of the material is new to me.
I will try to help you with it as time permits, bearing in mind that our goal is to keep all this relevant to ways to improve Wikipedia.
This is the middle of tax season for me, so it may take a while to get to this material, so stay tuned. Gotta get to bed now. Famspear 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt: I've reviewed the material you listed above in more detail. Of the approximately 58 to 60 court cases you cited, about half are already specifically addressed here in Wikipedia -- many of them in Wikipedia tax-related articles, others on the talk pages for the articles. The material is riddled with errors. Regarding the verbiage regarding the "OMB control number-Paperwork Reduction Act argument," unfortunately OMB control number arguments have already been addressed here in Wikipedia as well. They are tax protester arguments, which means that they have no legal merit.

From a Wikipedia standpoint, there is virtually nothing new in any of this tax protester material. Yours, Famspear 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

USA v Laugenour[edit]

The article USA v Laugenour has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Also, please don't just cut and paste the entire text of pleadings. NawlinWiki 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


If you want to show that this case is notable, you need to find reliable independent sources establishing its notability. It's not enough for you to say why you think it's notable. See Wikipedia:Attribution. In addition, your comment on my talk page (saying that the DOJ has "admitted crimes by implication") clearly shows that you are pushing an agenda, in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NawlinWiki 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lawrence case and the OMB control number argument: the OMB argument loses again[edit]

Dear Bobhurt: It's been a while, but I wanted to touch base with you again. This is regarding the Lawrence case that you had brought up last year. You will remember that I exposed the phony claim by some tax protesters on the internet that the Lawrence case was dismissed because the government was afraid it would lose because of the taxpayer's frivolous OMB control number argument. (In fact, the case was dismissed on the government's request because IRS agents concluded that their calculations of Mr. Lawrence's tax had been faulty.)

Well, Mr. Lawrence subsequently tried unsuccessfully to raise the same OMB control number argument on appeal. After the criminal prosecution case was dropped in 2006 (at the request of the government), Lawrence appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -- to try to obtain a reversal of the trial court's refusal to order the government to compensate him for the legal fees he incurred. Lawrence contended that the government's conduct against him had been "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith."

In March of 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected both the OMB argument and the tax protester's request for compensation. The following is an excerpt from the Court's decision:

According to Lawrence, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) required the Internal Revenue Service to display valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) numbers on its Form 1040 [ . . . ]. Lawrence argues that the PRA by its terms prohibits the government from imposing a criminal penalty upon a citizen for the failure to complete a form where the information request at issue does not comply with the PRA. Lawrence never explains how this argument is even relevant to the three counts involving tax evasion, but even as to the other three counts, it must fail [ . . . ] Lawrence's brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes [ . . . ] Lawrence provides no explanation of how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it."

--from page 2 of the Judgment, March 26, 2007, United States v. Lawrence, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 06-3205, docket entry 39.

Yours, Famspear 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The OMB control number argument doesn't work for Lindsey Springer, either[edit]

Now, for some history on Mr. Lindsey Springer. These are just some of the cases.

In Springer v. Commissioner, 95-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,220 (N.D. Okla. 1995), aff'd sub nom. Springer v. Internal Revenue Serv., 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,219 (10th Cir. 1996), Lindsey Springer and 49 other individuals had filed a class action suit against the government in connection with various tax collection actions. The suit was thrown out on February 23, 1995. Springer appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court (that means Springer lost on appeal as well). In this case, Springer was penalized $2,000 under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In Buckner v. United States, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,240 (N.D. Okla. 1999), Springer and 71 other plaintiffs were thrown out of court on an argument that "involuntary servitude" was being imposed because the taxpayers were not allowed to opt out of the Federal tax system. The court ruled that all of the claims were "completely lacking in legal merit" and that the arguments were "patently frivolous." The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the District Court had been correct in imposing penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6673.

On June 21, 2006, in Springer v. United States, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,468 (N.D. Okla. 2006), Springer's OMB control number argument with respect to Form 1040 under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) was thrown out. What a surprise.

On August 7, 2006, in Springer v. United States, 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,120 (N.D. Okla. 2006), Springer argued that the IRS notice of deficiency against him should be thrown out. Instead, the court rejected that request and threw Springer out of court. Although I have not seen every case in which Springer has been involved over the years, are we starting to see a trend here? Yours, Famspear 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - The June 2006 case was one where he raised the OMB control number argument. He raised various arguments in the other cases. Yours, Famspear 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On March 10, 2009, the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, U.S. Department of Justice, issued this news release:

United States Attorney David E. O'Meilia and Michael P. Lahey, Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Field Office of Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigations, announced the return of a Grand Jury indictment today [March 10, 2009] against Lindsey Kent Springer, 43, of Kellyville, and Oscar Amos Stilley, 45, of Fort Smith, Arkansas.
The Indictment charges Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Tax Evasion and Failure to File Tax Returns. Springer used the name Bondage Breakers Ministry to solicit and receive money. Springer's stated purpose for Bondage Breakers Ministry was "to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service." The Indictment alleges that Stilley, an attorney, assisted Springer's tax evasion through a variety of means. Stilley maintained an interest bearing account, called an Arkansas IOLTA Foundation Trust account, which lawyers use to deposit and hold client funds. The pair allegedly used the IOLTA account and various other devices such as cashier's checks, check cashing services, money orders, cash and other means to conceal Springer's actual income and avoid creating the usual records of financial institutions. Springer allegedly told IRS employees that all funds he receives are gifts and donations to his ministry and that he does not have any income and he does not provide any services for payment. The indictment lists numerous transactions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars between Springer and Stilley that flowed through the IOLTA account, such as $166,000 paid out in August 2005 to purchase a motor home titled in the name of Springer and his wife, and a September 2005 payment of $25,813 to purchase a Lexus automobile titled in Springer's name. Furthermore, the Indictment states that neither Springer or Stilley have filed an income tax return since the late 1980's. Springer faces five counts alleging criminal violations of the federal tax laws for the years 2000, and 2002 through 2005.
If the defendants are found guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1 through 4, they face a maximum prison sentence of up to five years per count and/or a $250,000 fine per count. Springer faces a total of 22 years in Federal prison if convicted of all counts; Stilley faces a total of 15 years in Federal prison if convicted of all counts. [ . . . . ]

The case is case no. 4:09-cr-00043-JHP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As expected, Lindsey Springer raised the OMB control number-Paperwork Reduction Act argument in his federal criminal tax case. See Docket entry 53, May 15, 2009, "Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for Violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995," Lindsey K. Springer v. United States, case no. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa Div.). His argument was rejected by the court. See Docket entry 100, July 2, 2009 (ruling denying motion at docket entry 53, etc.), Lindsey K. Springer v. United States, case no. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa Div.).
The jury in Tulsa found Springer guilty on all counts: three counts of federal tax evasion, two counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS. See "Okla. preacher, Ark. lawyer convicted in tax case," Associated Press, Nov. 16, 2009, reprinted by USA Today, at [4]. See also Indictment, March 10, 2009, at docket entry 2, Lindsey K. Springer v. United States, case no. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa Div.).
Lindsey Springer is awaiting sentencing. Famspear (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
On April 23, 2010, Lindsey K. Springer was sentenced, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in Tulsa, to 15 years in federal prison. Famspear (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad Rap: "Tax Protesters"[edit]

Famspear, thanks for your comments. You can notice on this page all my comments on taxes, and take a hint. I ask you to move them to the proper places in income tax for the United States, and I ask you to stop referring to them disingenuously as as tax protester arguments.

I have a serious problem philosophically with you serving as moderator of the income tax pages. I appreciate your legal acumen, but your tax bias makes you into a notoriously bad moderator. We might as well have the IRS or DOJ moderating the pages.

My main problem: your intellectual dishonesty, and your associated tendency to refer to any and every anti-IRS comment as a "tax protester" argument.

As I pointed out below, people who fight against the DOJ and IRS in income tax matters are not tax protesters. They merely fight for their constitutional rights against an enormously powerful force (the largest criminal racketeering enterprise known to man (the IRS) and the biggest criminal law firm in the world (the DOJ). Those two powerful organizations in concert divide and conquer individual Americans. As the Laugenour case proves (and it does prove this) employees of the DOJ, IRS, and federal courts can receive bonus money for successfully prosecuting their opponents (the people). That amounts to nothing more than organized graft - incentives to ruin the lives of people who stand up for their rights.

I recall your telling me that the income tax is a direct tax. I find that assertion absurd. The constitution twice tells us that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states by population. No amendment repealed those provisions. And yet when we ask the IRS to show us what taxable activities justify the imposition of an indirect tax upon us, they refuse to answer. They enter lies about us in our Individual Master Files to make it seem we live in the US Virgin Islands or import pharmaceuticals, so as to justify the pretense that we fall subject to the income tax.

The IRS, the DOJ, and the courts routinely violates due process rights. I have yet to see a valid assessment certificate against anybody they claim owes an income tax.

So, as I see your role on Wikipedia, you support the criminal behavior of the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges. I do not protest against the income tax. I protest against the crimes committed by its advocates in government, and its criminal implementation.

You cannot in good conscience support the principles of case law established by courts who violate the rulings of the Supreme Court over the past 120 years. The court in United States v. Anastasoff I, No. 99-3917EM (August 22, 2000) refused to order the IRS to pay back to Faye Anastoff her tax overpayment, and also ruled that unpublished case law serves as precedent just as does published case law. Then she petitioned for an en banc hearing and the IRS paid her back anyway. The court considered the matter and ruled in United States v. Anastasoff II, No. 99-3917EM (December 18, 2000) thusly:

"[t]he controversy over the status of unpublished opinions is, to be sure, of great interest and importance....Whether unpublished opinions have precedential effect no longer has any relevance....Here, the case having become moot, the appropriate and customary treatment is to vacate our previous opinion and judgment, remand to the District Court, and direct the Court to vacate its judgment as moot."

Bottom line, our courts operate so fraudulently that they do whatever they can to further the crimes of the IRS against the people. You cannot in good conscience condone the insanity of the 8th Circuit panel in vacating its earlier Anastoff ruling, thereby allowing judges to hide their opinions and remove them from case law simply by refusing to publish them.

We see here an ongoing succession of criminal activities by public officers in matters related to income tax.

And you fully support it, from what I can tell. Kindly tell me why that should operate to justify you as moderator of the income tax pages.

By the way, I believe the most recent post should sit at the top of the list, not the bottom. Any way we can make that into a policy at Wikipedia?

And tell me, do you accept money or other benefits from the IRS, DOJ, or courts for acting as their advocate and spokesperson?

Bob Hurt 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Dear Bob Hurt: Sorry, but the term "tax protester" is a legal term used by the U.S. Federal courts to describe people who make various legally frivolous arguments about the nature of the Federal income tax laws. I didn't coin the term.
I am not a "moderator." Wikipedia is not a weblog and Wikipedia does not have "moderators" for articles or talk pages.
As I have previously mentioned, Wikipedia has a rule about engaging in personal attacks. By accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, you are breaking a Wikipedia rule. Please stop.
I do not have a tendency to "refer to any and every anti-IRS comment" as a tax protester argument. Further, Wikipedia articles are not properly used as a cyberspace soapbox for you to make your "anti-IRS comments." Wikipedia articles are not the proper place for your "fight against the DOJ [Department of Justice] and IRS [Internal Revenue Service] in income tax matters."
I understand that you feel that the DOJ is "the biggest criminal law firm in the world." The mere fact that you are entitled to that opinion does not entitle you to use Wikipedia articles as a place to spread the word.
You say you recall my telling you that the income tax is a "direct tax." You are incorrect. The statement that the income tax is a direct tax is a meaningless statement. It's like saying that a Chevrolet is a Lumina. The argument over whether "the" income tax is a "direct tax" or an "indirect tax" is, for purposes of the Constitutional requirement of apportionment, legally irrelevant after the Sixteenth Amendment. For the umpteen gazillionth time, nobody really much cares whether any particular income tax is "direct" or "indirect" - except mainly tax protesters who are trying to make frivolous arguments and who do not understand Article I of the Constitution, the 16hth Amendment to the Constitution, or cases like Pollock and Brushaber.
My role on Wikipedia is not to "support the criminal behavior of the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges." My role on Wikipedia is to edit the encyclopedia, using the rules of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research.
Go back and read the Anastasoff cases more carefully. I don't think you understand what you are reading.
Regarding the positioning of postings, the Wikipedia convention is to put the latest postings at the bottom of the applicable talk page, or at the bottom of the applicable section in a talk page. I don't see a good reason to change that convention, and I have no authority to do that either.
Your latest question about whether I "accept money or other benefits from the IRS, DOJ or courts for acting as their advocate and spokesperson" is completely out of line and is, bluntly hilarious. These kinds of comments are nothing more than you way of attacking me because you disagree with the edits I make -- in turn, because you want to use Wikipedia articles to push your own point of view about the "bad" IRS, DOJ, and courts. I believe, also, that we have been through this before. Incidentally, I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for the IRS, the DOJ, or for any court, or for any Federal or state government agency or entity of any kind whatsoever -- nor have I ever received anything of value whatsoever from any of the above. As I believe you well know, I even used to have a statement on my User page to the effect that I help real people in their dealings with the IRS. I represent taxpayers, Bob -- not the government.
Wikipedia has a rule about assuming good faith. Bob, it is getting harder and harder to assume that you are acting in good faith when you continue to make the kinds of comments you have made off and on for over a year now. Please think about what you are saying and review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hurt's responses, interlineated with Famspear's comments[edit]

Dear Bob Hurt: Sorry, but the term "tax protester" is a legal term used by the U.S. Federal courts to describe people who make various legally frivolous arguments about the nature of the Federal income tax laws. I didn't coin the term.
Dear Famspear: The tax protester term derides people who use the law to prove a point about tax law, then get overridden by a corrupt judiciary. Most people who make such legal points do not do so frivolously or in protest of legitimate taxation, but rather in an effort to win their cases as do all attorneys. You do not see judges labeling such attorneys as "law protesters," do you? Kindly stop justifying snide and demeaning, ad hominem terminology by saying "since a judge used the term, it's okay." No it is not okay. I don't believe you would it appropriate legal terminology if a judge called you a "scum-sucking pig."
I am not a "moderator." Wikipedia is not a weblog and Wikipedia does not have "moderators" for articles or talk pages.
Yes, you are a "moderator." You routinely delete material posted to the tax pages and justify it by incorrectly citing a Wikipedia rule instead of helping to correct the expression.
As I have previously mentioned, Wikipedia has a rule about engaging in personal attacks. By accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, you are breaking a Wikipedia rule. Please stop.
As I showed above, you use the Wikipedia rule to badger others into silence, but you employ the same personal attacks you denounce. You label as frivolous or tax protester arguments those which a corrupt judge has called a frivolous or tax protester argument, but without any facts to back up the label. Many of our nation's and states' and counties' judges are merely criminals in black robes, so why would you honor them by using their terminology? I'll tell you why. You want to disparage people like me who want to shine the light of truth on the bad rulings of corrupt and/or incompetent judges. So you use their methods and then point at them as though we should consider them a worthy or reliable source of truth. A judge's determination that an argument has a frivolous nature or constitutes a tax protester argument does not make the determination truthful or factual.
I do not have a tendency to "refer to any and every anti-IRS comment" as a tax protester argument. Further, Wikipedia articles are not properly used as a cyberspace soapbox for you to make your "anti-IRS comments." Wikipedia articles are not the proper place for your "fight against the DOJ [Department of Justice] and IRS [Internal Revenue Service] in income tax matters."
Yes, you do. And because of that, you use Wikipedia articles as a soapbox for making pro-IRS comments through the act of denying equal space to well-reasoned, fact-based, opposing views. You cannot write neutrally about a subject unless you properly air opposing views about it without giving undue fame or infamy to any of the views. By calling a view a "tax protester" argument, you defame it, just as our corrupt courts have. And thank God Wikipedia is not a court of law where we need to revere the rulings or terminology of criminals in black robes.
I understand that you feel that the DOJ is "the biggest criminal law firm in the world." The mere fact that you are entitled to that opinion does not entitle you to use Wikipedia articles as a place to spread the word.
Yes, it does, particularly when I back the opinion with fact and reason, and express the view neutrally. I should be entitled, for example, to point out the government's repeated claims that the IRS is a US agency, and the contradicting fact that no act of Congress ever made it so, and to point out that that 4 USC 72 prohibits such agencies from operating offices outside Washington DC without express permission of Congress, and that no Act of Congress has ever expressed such permission. These neutral fact expressions lead the reader inexorably to the truth that the IRS is a rogue organization, without anyone actually calling it "rogue."
You cannot maintain a wholly neutral expression when you tell a loathsome truth like that, not if you want to tell the truth. In that respect, you would express with extreme bias if you failed to use the term "rogue," for the definition of rogue fits the behavior of the IRS and its overlords, all the way up to the President.
You say you recall my telling you that the income tax is a "direct tax." You are incorrect. The statement that the income tax is a direct tax is a meaningless statement. It's like saying that a Chevrolet is a Lumina. The argument over whether "the" income tax is a "direct tax" or an "indirect tax" is, for purposes of the Constitutional requirement of apportionment, legally irrelevant after the Sixteenth Amendment. For the umpteen gazillionth time, nobody really much cares whether any particular income tax is "direct" or "indirect" - except mainly tax protesters who are trying to make frivolous arguments and who do not understand Article I of the Constitution, the 16hth Amendment to the Constitution, or cases like Pollock and Brushaber.
I do not understand how you can face yourself in the mirror after such a guileful expression as the above hodgepodge of falsehoods. The ENTIRE issue is about the power of Congress to impose direct taxes, and the FACT that the 16th AMendment did NOT repeal the apportionment requirements or the target of direct taxes: the state governments, not the people. The 16th Amendment conferred NO NEW TAXING POWER. It merely put the income tax into the category of an excise, making it an INDIRECT tax. Thus, 26 USC applies ONLY TO PEOPLE ENGAGED IN TAXABLE ACTIVITIES, and occupations of common right do NOT constitute taxable activities. The IRS, under orders from the President and his minions in the Treasury Department, treats income tax like a DIRECT tax and goes after EVERYBODY, wrongly asserting that all of their revenues constitute "GROSS INCOME." Through deceit the IRS has waged a disinformation campaign for scores of years, seeking to impose a direct tax upon the people even though the CUSA in Article I Section 2 Clause 3 and Section 9 Clause 4 specifically and TWICE limits direct taxation powers to application ONLY upon the states. The language of the 16th Amendment did not repeal those clauses, so they still stand, as the Supreme Court pointed out in several rulings. The only thing frivolous about this matter is your expressed view about it, and of course, the similar expressions from corrupt Circuit and District judges. Just like some of the nation's corrupt judges, YOU do not understand either the direct tax or apportionment requirements of either Article I or the 16th Amendment.
You also do not grasp Article I Section 8 Clause 17 which limits the Exclusive Legislative Authority of Congress to the Federal Zone, since then extended into the territorial possessions of the US. Regardless of what our criminal courts have said, the 10th Amendment limits the power of Congress to those specifically enumerated powers, and ONLY AIS8C17 enumerates exclusive legislative authority, and then only to the federal zone. Congress has no authority outside that zone except in respect to regulating interstate commerce, and enforcing its guarantees, such as that of the republican form of government for the states, to keep the state free of invasion (both of which it has utterly failed to do), and to enforce the guarantees of the rights of the people. Bottom line, the US Government has no business taxing people in the states directly, PERIOD, chiefly because Congress has NO EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN THE STATES. We have state legislatures for that purpose. Don't bother giving me the frivolous argument that the US courts have dramatically exceeded that limit of power and I might as well get used to it. If you did your job, you would work to enforce the limit of that power by fighting every effort of the IRS to operate inside the state of Texas. But you don't.


My role on Wikipedia is not to "support the criminal behavior of the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges." My role on Wikipedia is to edit the encyclopedia, using the rules of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research.
Yes, you do have that role. You could help newbies like me write useful articles, but instead, you strike them down, and you mislabel them as I have said above. Be honest, Famspear, in the "name" of following Wikipedia rules, you nevertheless support the criminal behavior of the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges. Remember, if it walks like a duck, quacks... you get the idea.


Go back and read the Anastasoff cases more carefully. I don't think you understand what you are reading.
I don't see you correcting any misunderstanding. Those cases with crystal clarity show that the court reversed itself for a fraudulent and frivolous reason, making a mockery of the idea and ideals of justice. Faye demanded a refund, using a procedural rule to rebutt the applicability of unpublished case law. The USDC okayed her refund. The USCC denied her refund, declaring the rule unconstitutional, and saying that published case law must control as precedent, or otherwise judges would do the job of congress by applying law as their whim dictated. The IRS refunded her money before the En Banc hearing, and so the USCC overturned its previous ruling, declaring the matter moot, and saying its previous ruling did not settle the question of the applicability of case law as controlling precedent. So now, lawyers like you cannot rely on unpublished case law as precedent, and as the USCC judge so clearly and patiently explained, judges thereby legislate from the bench, in abject violation of their powers (granted by Congress) under CUSA Article III. Of course, were I an attorney I would lust for the chance to stuff an unpublished opinion up the ass of a recalcitrant judge, daring him to challenge the sound reasoning of the appeals judge in Anastoff I.
Regarding the positioning of postings, the Wikipedia convention is to put the latest postings at the bottom of the applicable talk page, or at the bottom of the applicable section in a talk page. I don't see a good reason to change that convention, and I have no authority to do that either.
Okay, thanks for the encouragement to do things the "right" Wikipedia way.
Your latest question about whether I "accept money or other benefits from the IRS, DOJ or courts for acting as their advocate and spokesperson" is completely out of line and is, bluntly hilarious. These kinds of comments are nothing more than you way of attacking me because you disagree with the edits I make -- in turn, because you want to use Wikipedia articles to push your own point of view about the "bad" IRS, DOJ, and courts. I believe, also, that we have been through this before. Incidentally, I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for the IRS, the DOJ, or for any court, or for any Federal or state government agency or entity of any kind whatsoever -- nor have I ever received anything of value whatsoever from any of the above. As I believe you well know, I even used to have a statement on my User page to the effect that I help real people in their dealings with the IRS. I represent taxpayers, Bob -- not the government.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't consider them attacks, though you might rightly reason that your censor behavior warrants both censure and attack. In light of that behavior, I consider the question quite valid, and I hold no one in blame or low esteem for repeatedly raising the question. Keep walking, quacking, and exhibiting other behavior typical of ducks, all the while disguised as an honest tax lawyer, and people will continue raising the question, whether overtly or in their own thoughts. You can see me as the kid who pointed out king's naked state, even though the townspeople pretend him clothed.


Wikipedia has a rule about assuming good faith. Bob, it is getting harder and harder to assume that you are acting in good faith when you continue to make the kinds of comments you have made off and on for over a year now. Please think about what you are saying and review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Look at the comments from the many people who write to you, Famspear. Then rethink your comments to me. Most of yours seem laced with cyanide. I overtly question your integrity because of the nature and content of your repartee. I show you honesty, sincerity, clarity of thought, a modicum of education, and a desire to expose the truth about the income tax. You seem to want to obfuscate, and you use supercilious egalitarian expressions to demean me. Then you have the cheek to lecture me on good faith.
I encourage you to face yourself in the mirror and answer honestly the issues I have raised. You do provide good value to Wikipedia, and as a result, to the world, and I acknowledge it. But you need to kick your own self in the seat of the pants and rise to a higher standard of integrity before you lecture me on ethics, morals, or Wikipedia standards. You need to stop labeling as "tax protester" the arguments with which you disagree, or to which some judge of unknown ethics has applied that label. And remember that when you say "the court has ruled against xyz argument," you no more express a balanced or neutral view of the matter than if you express ONLY the times the courts have ruled against the IRS (and I notice a profound paucity of such information on Wikipedia). Sooner or later, Famspear, you need to face the reality that you suffer from a warped sense of ethics. You believe that what judges rule constitute "right" and that anything else deserves the label "Protester." You have become corrupted by the very system you say you help people fight. So naturally I wonder how good a job you can possibly do for them in such a fight. I imagine you accept their tax guilt as a fait accompli, and then proceed to negotiate only how much they owe. Maybe someday over an internet beer (or a real one if you ever venture to Clearwater, Florida where I live), you can explain that to me. That and how you can sleep at night without a soul.
By the way, I would far prefer to contend against your specious arguments in private email. You can contact me if you wish at http://bobhurt.com.
Bob Hurt 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Famspear's responses[edit]

Dear Bob Hurt: When you say the term "tax protester derides people who use the law to make a point about tax law," you are in a sense actually correct -- but not in the way I think you mean. Tax protester arguments are without any legal merit, and the courts consider the arguments so outlandish that the courts label those arguments as "frivolous," or use the term "tax protester," or often both terms. The term "frivolous" is even found in the Internal Revenue Code. Indeed, there are actually laws against making these kinds of arguments, both on tax returns and in court. You can even be punished for making these kinds of arguments, and the courts often do impose punishments in the form of fines. I and the other Wikipedia editors did not make those rules.

Yes, the term "tax protester" certainly does have a negative connotation. It should have a negative connotation, considering the behavior that is being described by the term. You are not the first person to object to the use of the term, and you will not be the last. However, "tax protester" is a legal term that has been used by the courts themselves to describe people who make the frivolous arguments described in the various articles. Wikipedia is not required to censor itself merely because you, Bob Hurt, are offended by the use of the term "tax protester."

Now you are accusing me of "badgering." To "badger" means to "torment." See Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 104 (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978). I have not badgered or tormented you (or anyone else) here in Wikipedia. Other editors are free to review my contributions -- and your contributions -- and judge for themselves about what is really going on here. Yes, I do respond to your postings on these talk pages, but I have never engaged in a personal attack on you. The rule in Wikipedia is: comment on the material itself, not on the contributor. By contrast, one of your very first comments to me on May 8, 2006, over a year ago (under the user name BobHurt rather than Bobhurt) was to call me a "coward": [5]. All your edits, under the user names "BobHurt" and "Bobhurt," are easy to see.

You keep saying things like "[m]any of our nation's and states' and counties' judges are merely criminals in black robes, so why would you honor them by using their terminology?" Answer: Where a court of law has labeled a particular specious argument to be legally frivolous, it is proper for Wikipedia to report that. The mere fact that you disagree with the court or you feel that the judge is merely a "criminal" in a "black robe" is of no moment. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

By calling a view a "tax protester" view, Wikipedia is reporting what the courts have ruled about that view. If the courts have "defamed" that view in your eyes, then that's just too bad. Tax protester views are legally wrong. Whether I personally feel they are morally wrong or you personally feel they are morally right are different questions. We are not here in Wikipedia to push our own personal points of view. There are plenty of appropriate places on the internet to do that.

You keep lecturing me on your personal beliefs about the law. When you do, I respond with an explanation of what the law actually is. I understand that this is frustrating for you, but that's too bad.

Bob, the information you have repeatedly dumped into your talk pages and other places here -- particularly the falsehoods about the Lawrence case and the Laugenour case -- has been riddled with falsehoods -- falsehoods which I have exposed as gently and as diplomatically as is required by the rules of Wikipedia. Again, I ask that you review the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research -- and especially the rules about Personal Attacks.

Good luck, Famspear 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hurt's response[edit]

Dear Bob Hurt: When you say the term "tax protester derides people who use the law to make a point about tax law," you are in a sense actually correct -- but not in the way I think you mean. Tax protester arguments are without any legal merit, and the courts consider the arguments so outlandish that the courts label those arguments as "frivolous," or use the term "tax protester," or often both terms. The term "frivolous" is even found in the Internal Revenue Code. Indeed, there are actually laws against making these kinds of arguments, both on tax returns and in court. You can even be punished for making these kinds of arguments, and the courts often do impose punishments in the form of fines. I and the other Wikipedia editors did not make those rules.

You have underscored my point. As a fellow bar member, your system of ethics requires you to speak nicely of the robed criminals presiding over courts because they have membership in the bar brotherhood. If you actually derided or denigrated them, they could cause you to go through disbarment proceedings. Naturally you seek to avoid such humiliation in the name of truth. I suffer from no such compunction, so I tell the truth about them.
In many cases, when such federal judges, all of whom owe income tax by virtue of their employment by the federal government, a taxable activity under Subtitle A, rule that an argument about the taxes has no merit or has a frivolous nature, they should suffer both disbarment and impeachment for violating their oaths of loyalty to the Constitution. And certainly nobody should grant them credence.
Show me a law with substantive regulation that makes a plumber liable for income tax by virtue of his receiving money in exchange for his labor as a plumber. Show me the frivolous nature of the argument that such a plumber owes no income tax for the receipt of that money.


Yes, the term "tax protester" certainly does have a negative connotation. It should have a negative connotation, considering the behavior that is being described by the term. You are not the first person to object to the use of the term, and you will not be the last. However, "tax protester" is a legal term that has been used by the courts themselves to describe people who make the frivolous arguments described in the various articles. Wikipedia is not required to censor itself merely because you, Bob Hurt, are offended by the use of the term "tax protester."

How about showing some actual proof to support your view. I see you only expressing an opinion, and not one from a neutral view. The government's response to the Laugenour's discovery proved fairly clearly that a criminal conspiracy exists to extort money from people under the color of law.

Now you are accusing me of "badgering." To "badger" means to "torment." See Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 104 (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978). I have not badgered or tormented you (or anyone else) here in Wikipedia. Other editors are free to review my contributions -- and your contributions -- and judge for themselves about what is really going on here. Yes, I do respond to your postings on these talk pages, but I have never engaged in a personal attack on you. The rule in Wikipedia is: comment on the material itself, not on the contributor. By contrast, one of your very first comments to me on May 8, 2006, over a year ago (under the user name BobHurt rather than Bobhurt) was to call me a "coward": [6]. All your edits, under the user names "BobHurt" and "Bobhurt," are easy to see.

Yes, I figure torment about sums it up.

You keep saying things like "[m]any of our nation's and states' and counties' judges are merely criminals in black robes, so why would you honor them by using their terminology?" Answer: Where a court of law has labeled a particular specious argument to be legally frivolous, it is proper for Wikipedia to report that. The mere fact that you disagree with the court or you feel that the judge is merely a "criminal" in a "black robe" is of no moment. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

I consider that a specious assertion. Wikipedia has no business honoring the words of lying, cheating, criminals posing as judges. In many cases, particularly income tax matters, Wikipedia might as well honor the flatulence of a herd of elephants. Wikipedia's first loyalty belongs to the truth, not to the utterances of men and women who routinely defecate on the constitution to which they swore loyalty. The fact that tens of thousands of thinking Americans share my opinions about federal judges in tax matters should give credence to my views. So you should allow them on the wikipedia pages right alongside those of the judges over whose words you dote.

By calling a view a "tax protester" view, Wikipedia is reporting what the courts have ruled about that view. If the courts have "defamed" that view in your eyes, then that's just too bad. Tax protester views are legally wrong. Whether I personally feel they are morally wrong or you personally feel they are morally right are different questions. We are not here in Wikipedia to push our own personal points of view. There are plenty of appropriate places on the internet to do that.

Baloney. Wikipedia does not report such nonsense. YOU do, in Wikipedia's name. Judicial rulings do not constitute law, for only Congress has the power to make law, and as you well know, judges overturn other judges' rulings nearly every day the courts convene. That means lots of judges are dead wrong, in the opinions of other judges, and therefore Necessarily in the opinion of "Wikipedia." Even the Supreme Court justices differ from one another in opinion, and so the ruling of their court does not constitute truth, law, rightness, or even approximate those virtues, particularly when some of the judges dissent. In the case of District and Circuit judges, they rule completely the opposite of the judges of other Districts and Circuits around the country. So, clearly we cannot rely on their opinions. In summary, their opinions have no greater value to our world than do mine, and they have far more incentive to rule contrary to the intent of Congress than do I.

You keep lecturing me on your personal beliefs about the law. When you do, I respond with an explanation of what the law actually is. I understand that this is frustrating for you, but that's too bad.

I rather like your explaining your views to me. But as you can tell from my baloney paragraph above, your explanations wander far from the truth on occasion. You have wonderful qualities, but perfection eludes you, even in your chosen profession to which you devote so much time and attention.

Bob, the information you have repeatedly dumped into your talk pages and other places here -- particularly the falsehoods about the Lawrence case and the Laugenour case -- has been riddled with falsehoods -- falsehoods which I have exposed as gently and as diplomatically as is required by the rules of Wikipedia. Again, I ask that you review the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research -- and especially the rules about Personal Attacks.

Good luck, Famspear 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your opinions as expressed, but I don't always buy them. You were dead wrong about Lawrence and Laugenour. I have interacted with the attorneys and litigants who opposed the government, and I expressed the best I could the truth about the cases as expressed to me. I have the Laugenour documents 70-76 and I have read them. The government sought discovery and Laugenours responded by explaining the questions implied lies. For example, the government asked for an admission about assessments, and the Laugenours explained that no valid assessment existed, and that the confusing mess of documents the IRS asserted constituted an assessment did not meet the legal requirements for an assessment in a single document like the form 23-c Assessment Certificate. The Laugenours also showed how the 1996 GAO report lambasted the IRS for its lack of organization, lack of security, and inability to account for millions upon millions of tax dollars. In their discovery efforts The Laugenours asserted facts about criminal behavior of the government, and the government failed to respond, creating estoppel under rules of evidence and associated case law. The judge in the case violated the law in his response to the Laugenour's subsequent judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Just as I said, tax case judges routinely lie, cheat, and violate the law, and they routinely collude with employees of the IRS and DOJ to deprive people of their rights.
Now, Famspear, specifically debunk the falsehoods in my statements above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobhurt (talk • contribs) (3 July 2007).

Dear Bob: Let's look at your verbiage here:

As a fellow bar member, your [Famspear's] system of ethics requires you to speak nicely of the robed criminals presiding over courts because they have membership in the bar brotherhood. If you actually derided or denigrated them, they could cause you to go through disbarment proceedings. Naturally you seek to avoid such humiliation in the name of truth.

Come on Bob. There's no rule that requires me to "speak nicely" of judges (the people you called "robed criminals") in Wikipedia merely because I'm a lawyer. You're saying that you really believe that I'm afraid that if I "actually derided or denigrated" a judge in Wikipedia, I'd get into trouble?

You keep asking me for some sort of justification of what you apparently view as a corrupt legal system. I am not here to do that. I and the other editors are here to edit Wikipedia, using the rules of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. I and others are not here for the purpose to "specifically debunk the falsehoods" in your statements -- although certainly the mis-statements you have made have been debunked -- here or on other talk pages. Again, everyone can review your comments, and mine as well.

I'm sorry, but the Laugenours lost their case. There's nothing I can do about it, and there's nothing you can do about.

Mr. Lawrence won his case, at least in the sense that his case was dismissed. No, he didn't win on the silly "OMB control number" tax protester argument (see Tax protester statutory arguments), but at least he got his case dismissed. You're just going to have to settle for that.

Regarding your assertion that my "explanations wander far from the truth on occasion" - no, Bob, they do not. I have never stated anything here that is not true.

I know that you have had a run-in or two with Internal Revenue Service employees, and I know that you feel a strong dislike for judges. Those people appear to be your Authority Figures. That is your business, not mine. You are just going to have to deal with that. Bob, you are transmuting your feelings about these Authority Figures into various tax protester arguments. It is one thing to say that this IRS employee or that judge is bad. It is quite another to say that the tax laws are not what the courts have ruled those laws are, over and over. There is nothing you can do to change this, Bob. Please leave Wikipedia out of your crusade. Instead, I encourage you to consider making constructive edits, following the rules of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, and especially No Personal Attacks. Yours, Famspear 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Case Law Serves Evil Purposes, and What to Do about It[edit]

Case law often serves evil purposes in America. So often, in fact, that the legislature should outlaw it, with only rare exceptions. My reaons include the folloiwng.

Case law has the following application. When litigants cannot understand the law or its application, a judge will decide the matter. Later, other judges, dealing with the same kind of issue with generally the same merits, follow the ruling of the previous judge rather than re-thinking and re-researching the relevant issues. This saves a lot of time and money.

This method of deciding cases could make sense if judges had high levels of integrity and no one could "get to them" and bribe or otherwise convince them to give an unrighteous ruling. Unfortunately, the real world does not even remotely approach that ideal.

Nowadays, as in the Anastoff I and II rulings, judges seem to lose their minds. In the first ruling, the judge denied a woman's request for the IRS to refund a tax overpayment. The IRS quoted a prior ruling as the basis for denial. Anastasoff claimed that ruling did not count because it was unpublished and rule of procedure 28(a)(i) made unpublished rulings inapplicable as precedent case law, stupidly in my opinion. Why stupidly? Because precedent provides a way for the judiciary to legislate from the bench and the rule hides embarassing case law by allowing judges the discretion as to whether to publish it. As a result, the courts deny justice to one or more litigants.

Even worse, case law often undermines the intention of legislators. As a classic example, look at the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, and the mess the government has made of it in the Lindsey Springer cases. Lindsey clearly showed how various circuit courts differ in opinion on the matter, some judges even concocting an outrageous exception to the law by saying it did not apply to the IRS form 1040, thereby totally contradicting the intent, spirit, and purpose of Congress in the PRA.

Few Americans can afford to litigate against the IRS in Federal District court, much les sin Circuit or Supreme courts. We depend heavily upon our judges making sane, rational, crystal clear decisions in accord with the Constitution first and foremost, and in accord with constitutional laws second. District Courts (whose rulings can serve as precedent) often rule against the law for the express purpose of depriving a litigant of justice because the USDC judge knows most litigants will not bear the expense of the appeal.

Bottom line: in America, our courts, especially below the Supreme level, have embraced wholesale corruption, and the people cannot trust them to administer justice, fairly or otherwise.

For this reason, ALL precedent should be thrown out.

In fact, I do not know of a constitution's provision that empowers the courts to make rulings OTHER than fresh, freshly though, freshly reasoned, freshly researched rulings. As a convention, custom, or tradition, case law has subverted America's system of justice and forced it toward injustice.

We can only solve such a problem by requiring our legislators to pass an amendment to the Constitution like this:


  • All decisions of all courts at all levels shall comply to the letter of any and all provisions of the Constitution of the US and of the state wherein the court exists, and with the letter of any and all associated laws enacted by Congress.
  • Any judge who violates the above shall suffer removal from position and forfeiture of all pensions and pay.
  • Upon petition and affidavit of 10 people of good repute, Congress shall within 30 days after receipt of the petition review the decision of a court and decide whether to modify the laws or initiate impeachment proceedings correct any associated error.
  • Case law shall stand for a maximum of one year, after which no court shall use the ruling as a precedent basis for a new ruling, but instead the court shall fully review the matter and rule in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws pursuant thereto.
  • Congress shall each year review all federal court rulings for the preceeding year, and modify the laws as needed to eliminate any confusion in the law that led to a ruling that did not comply with the law. For all cases requiring a consequent modification of the law for clarity inconsistent with the court ruling, Congress shall notify the court of the modification, and the Court shall reverse its ruling and pay any litigant adversely affected the full cost of litigation and inconvenience.
  • In any tribunal having more than one judge and judging an issue of law or its application in any case of any government entity in opposition to a natural person, the judges must either agree unanimously or acquit the person. In any such case having more than one juror, the jurors must either agree unanimously or acquit the person.
  • Every court shall instruct every juror and prospective juror of the juror's right to decide matters of law as well as of fact, and the courts shall not interfere.
  • Juries must consist of non-felon people of good reputation from the community in which live the defendant and other natural persons litigating live, and all jurors must have gainful employment or own real property and have successfully passed 12 or more years of formal education.
  • In all income tax cases against natural person defendants, the defendant shall have a compulsory trial by jury, jurors shall come from a pool of non-tax-payers, the judge shall have no authority to prevent the defendant to enter evidence or subpoena and use defense witnesses, the government shall pay the defendant's full cost of litigation, the defendant shall have total prerogative of choice of counsel to assist in the litigation, including choice of a non-attorney, and no court shall exhibit any prejudice against pro-se litigants.


Only such new rules can begin to restore constitutionality to our land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobhurt (talk • contribs) on 25 June 2007.

Dear Bob: The legislature should outlaw case law? Judges "seem to lose their minds"? Our courts "have embraced wholesale corruption, and the people cannot trust them to administer justice"? You want a constitutional amendment? Write your Congressman, Bob. Yours, Famspear 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Dear Famspear: Thanks for the encouragement. I have encouraged my legislators to change the Constitution.
Yes, Congress should outlaw case law. If the law does not say clearly what Congress means, Congress should revise the law to sat what it means clearly. If it routinely examined court rulings for conflict with legislative intent, it could modify "bad" law to make it clearer and understandable, and thereby minimize the need for judges.
So long as a judge can with impunity change the meaning and intent of the Constitution or the law by ruling precisely the opposite to what they say, we have a judge who legislates from the bench and usurps the authority of Congress. Congress should penalize all such judges with summary hangings. Congress should similarly penalize its members with hangings for making laws that oppose the clear language of the Constitution.
Let us take as an example the income tax laws.
  • Congress cannot possibly impose the income tax directly upon the people, their property, or their labor, owing to the "direct tax" language of AIS2C3 and AIS9C4, and
  • Congress can only impose the income tax as an excise upon some taxable happening, event, occurrence, or activity, owing to the language of the 16th Amendment, so therefore
  • 26 USC applies only to specified taxable activities such as (in subtitle A) the privilege of working for the federal government, and (in subsequent titles) doing other things like making or importing guns, whiskey, and cigarettes.
Our federal courts at district and circuit levels have done everything possible to support the IRS reign of terror, and they have accomplished this with the legal nuclear bomb of "case law," the scourge of American jurisprudence.
The above issue serves as a notable example because the US Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on "what is the legitimate subject of the income tax." Why do you think tens of thousands of anti-IRS litigants who have lost in the lower courts have never managed to get that question before the Supremes?
Study the most recent case of Bob Schulz and his lawsuit over the petition for redress of grievances, and you will find out. The criminal judges in USDC and USCC seem determined to prevent Schulz from obtaining simple justice - the enforcement by the courts of the Constitution's guarantee that we people can petition the government for redress of grievances, including the right to force the recipient of the petition to listen to or read the petition, give an answer, and give remedy according to law.
Bob Hurt 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Famspear's reply[edit]

Dear Bob Hurt: The "Bob Schulze" to whom you refer spells his name "Schulz" (Robert L. Schulz). The following is a press release from the United States Department of Justice, dated April 3, 2007:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The United States announced that it has sued to block Robert L. Schulz, of Queensbury, N.Y., from selling an alleged tax fraud scheme said to have cost the U.S. Treasury more than $21 million, the Justice Department announced today. Also named in the suit are two corporations, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress Inc.
The government's complaint, filed in Syracuse with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleges that Schulz has used the two We the People entities to market a nationwide tax fraud scheme, called the Tax Termination Package, to employers and employees. According to the complaint, the Tax Termination Package includes We the People forms, which the defendants falsely tell customers can be used to replace forms the IRS requires employers and employees must use in connection with federal tax withholding from wages.
The suit says that Schulz and the We the People entities falsely state that use of the replacement forms will allow customers to legally stop tax withholding. According to the complaint, the defendants base the scheme on frivolous arguments about federal tax laws that federal courts have repeatedly rejected. These schemes are on the IRS's 2007 list of the Dirty Dozen tax scams. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=167983,00.html
"People who sell tax scams are asking for trouble for themselves and their customers who participate in them," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division. "They and their customers temporarily enrich themselves at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers. The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service are determined to stamp out these scams."
Since 2001 the Justice Department has obtained more than 230 injunctions to stop the promotion of tax fraud schemes and the preparation of fraudulent returns. More information about the Justice Department's efforts against tax-scam promoters can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress20076.htm. Information about the Justice Department's Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax." [7]

Bob, my personal view is that Mr. Schulz is not looking for "simple justice." Mr. Schulz promotes tax protester schemes, and was unsuccessful in an attempt to use the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as part of this promotion of tax protester schemes. Mr. Schulz is under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, as already noted elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Regarding your complaint that tens of thousands of anti-IRS litigants have lost in the lower courts and have never managed to get the question of "what is the legitimate subject of the income tax" to be heard by the Supreme Court – you are partially correct if you are implying that "anti-IRS litigants" have lost every tax protester argument they have raised (and I don't know if it's "tens of thousands," but yes, it's a large number). The reason they can't get their cases heard before the United States Supreme Court is that the members of the Supreme Court feel that they have more important things to deal with, and rightly so.

The last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a tax protester case was 1991. Mr. John Cheek was a pilot for American Airlines who had filed tax returns for years, but then stopped filing returns and paying tax because he started reading the same kind of tax protester literature you read, Bob. Mr. Cheek's argument was that wages were not taxable.

In the Cheek case, the Supreme Court actually threw out the tax evasion conviction of Mr. Cheek because of an error in the jury instructions by the trial court. The Supreme Court sent the case back for a trial based on a correct jury instruction.

Before I tell you what happened next, I want to note that the Supreme Court rendered two decisions in the Cheek case:

A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable.
A belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is not a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even if that belief is genuine and is held in good faith.

On making the second ruling, the Court stated:

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.
We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong. [bolding added]

Justice Harry Blackmun, one of the Supreme Court justices who disagreed with the Court's decision to throw out Cheek's conviction, wrote this dissent to the Court's decision:

It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," [ . . . ] but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income? [ . . . ] [I]t is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, [ . . . ] any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S. Ct. 604 (1991).

After being convicted based on the correct jury instruction, Mr. Cheek appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court again. This time, the Court declined to hear his case, and Mr. Cheek went to prison.

The last thing that tax protesters would want to do is to have the United States Supreme Court hear another tax protester case. Yours, Famspear 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I disagree with your assessment. I believe the Supreme Court MUST hear a case with a team as talented as Bob Schulz and Mark Lane standing before the justices. And the question should deal with "what is the legitimate subject of the income tax?" The Supremes have never dealt with that question. Could it have to do with their status as taxpayers? Bob Hurt 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bob - As you may have heard by now, the talented Bob Schulz has lost still another round in the courts. Of course, the last time I checked the other day, he was still not mentioning that on his "We the People" web site, even though he's still asking for monetary contributions.

Regarding the United States Supreme Court and the way the Court views tax protester arguments - the Court views those arguments as legally frivolous. For example, in Cheek v. United States, John Cheek had specifically contended prior to his conviction that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit. See Cheek, 498 U.S. at 196. In its opinion, the Court specifically used the word "frivolous" to describe John Cheek's arguments. Yours, Famspear 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More on the talented Mr. Bob Schulz[edit]

Bob Schulz and his We the People Foundation organization have argued unsuccessfully that, based on the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the government should have a duty to respond to a taxpayer's demand for an explanation as to why taxpayers are subject to income tax. On May 8, 2007, the Schulz argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States. May 8, 2007, case no. 05-5359, U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir., 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,523 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes; (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings. Decision and Order, Aug. 9, 2007, docket entry 30, United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, case no. 1:07-cv-0352, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Yours, Famspear 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes; (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings. Decision and Order, Aug. 9, 2007, docket entry 30, United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, case no. 1:07-cv-0352, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Yours, Famspear 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Famspear On Schulz, and Focus on the Real Issue[edit]

I consider the injunction high-handed and illegal, violating the 1st Amendment that forms the basis of Mr. Schulz's present lawsuit against the government. And, I hope Mr. Schulz appeals the injunction to the Supreme Court.

As I said, the Supremes should rule on the proper subject of the income tax.

I, like Frank Kowalik, believe the internal revenue code in Subtile A makes federal employees liable for a return of part of their income to the government, as a kickback for the privilege of having a cushy government job, but that Subtitle A does not apply to the rest of us.

Moreover, I believe Article I Section 8 Clause 17 limits the power of the Congress to tax anyone outside its federal zone territory, and that the 16th amendment did not repeal that provision, which the 9th and 10th amendments support. That is why AIS2C3 and AIS9C4 prescribe for direct taxes the rule of apportionment among the states based on population, and the 16th Amendment puts the income tax into the category of an excise (which Congress can lawfully levy only upon an activity, event, occurrence, or happening, but not on one's head, existence, property, income, or labor. The income does not constitute the item taxed, but only the means of measuring the tax owed upon the execution of a taxable activity.

No one has managed to lay the matters of the above paragraph properly before the Supreme Court. I believe them a pack of cowards for allowing Americans to languish under an oppressive and illegally implemented system of income taxation that the Constitution specifically prohibits. These arguments constitute the heart and soul of the matter and they are anything but frivolous.

In all the case law you have cited, I have seen an evolution in the Supreme Court's rulings (and therefore in the characters of its members) from something approaching common sense on this subject to something resembling treason against the Constitution.

Very truly yours, BobHurt 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Dear Bob: All the beliefs you listed above are incorrect. (What else would you expect me to say?)
When you say "pack of cowards," I'll assume you are referring to the current members of the Supreme Court unless you say otherwise. You say you have seen an evolution in the Supreme Court's rulings from "common sense" to "something resembling treason." That's funny, 'cause I haven't seen that evolution at all. What I have seen is a series of court decisions by the Supreme Court and other Federal courts that consistently blow all tax protester arguments right out of the water. Not one single victory by a tax protester on a tax protester argument, ever.
Anyway, if you do indeed feel that the Supreme Court members today are a "pack of cowards," you might want to ask yourself whether it would really be a good idea from Mr. Bob Schulz's perspective for him to appeal to the Supreme Court. Ask yourself whether you believe that the Supreme Court or any other Federal court will ever uphold Schulz's arguments (or your arguments). Ask yourself what you have seen in any court decision that would ever give you any such hope.
By the way, on a separate matter, you may or may not be aware that some Federal courts have ruled that an item of "income" does not even have to be "income" in order for Congress to validly tax it as "income" under the Constitution. I'm talking about the Murphy decision in early July, as well as the older Penn Mutual case. Yours, Famspear 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hurt, I believe famspear is doing quite a good job in refuting your tax arguements, so I won't comment on that. But I do find one of your statements particularly offensive: 

"as a kickback for the privilege of having a cushy government job"

Why don't you go to Iraq to research more on the available 'cushy government jobs'? (see your nearest military recruiter to get a free trip to Iraq where you can enjoy a 'cushy government' job! I find your statement even more offensive, seeing that you apparently spent some time in the Navy.Stanleywinthrop 21:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley, try to find something else to raise your hackles. And try not to preach or whine at me about how hard the military folks have it. We have a volunteer military today, and everyone in it CHOSE it, knowing the risks. Even with the possibility of risks, the vast majority of military jobs ARE cushy, as was my life during 9 years in the Navy during the era of the Vietnam War. I spent a good portion of it in school, and served aboard several submarines and as an instructor in a Navy school. Yes, my submarine could have sunk like the Thesher, but it didn't, and nobody ever shot at me, or vice versa. I describe THAT and THESE as cushy: free medical care, free education, and low prices of the Navy Exchange and Commissary. Sure, during a time of war or military conflict, those who chose a combat position risk their limbs and lives, but you can do the same in civilian life , and many people do(remember 9-11?), WITHOUT the enjoyment of all those free things. Furthermore, most government workers keep their jobs without risk of downsizing (particularly the non-military jobs), and unless they get caught for doing extremely bad things (and don't have crooked politicians to protect them), they retire with good pensions, and have cushy non-jobs for the rest of their lives, paid for by the American public. Like I said: CUSHY.
As for Famspear's arguments, I feel grateful for the education, but I don't believe it characterized by integrity. Famspear works as a Tax Attorney who pays income tax that he does not owe, and he believes everyone should do the same. He prides himself on saving his clients money in tax matters, but fails to see that he cheats every one of them by making them believe they actually owe some income tax, even though they engage in no taxable activity.
Famspear cons himself and others into thinking that the Constitution authorizes an income tax on wages. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise repeatedly, particularly with regard to the 16th Amendment. Famspear believes that Amendment 16 authorized the imposition of a direct income tax. He must ignore the clear language of Article I Section 2 Clause 3, and Article I Section 9 Clause 4 to do hold such a belief, and he has not sufficiently explained THAT position.
The Supremes ruled that Amendment 16 imposed no new form of taxation, but merely classified income tax as an indirect (excise) tax. Congress has always had the power to tax incomes, but the Constitution restricts the power of direct taxation to the states alone. Congress cannot tax the people directly, but our corrupt and incompetent district and circuit court judges do not seem able uniformly to grasp that Elementary School principal of taxation. Some believe income tax has a direct or indirect nature, and a few believe it has only an indirect nature.
If you think straight about this you will realize that the difference in belief between judges means many of them do not believe the Supreme Court's past rulings, and refuse to abide by them, thereby committing treason and armed insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution, and invoking the self-activating penalties in the 14th Amendment (loss of job, forfeiture of pensions):

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

We rightly should see such judges and attorneys as traitors if they would impose a direct income tax upon the people.

--BobHurt 14:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Bob, I am not conning anyone. I am here to edit Wikipedia. And, as usual, you are spouting frivolous tax protester rhetoric and other anti-government nonsense. Sell it to Irwin Schiff. Yours, Famspear 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I petition you[edit]

Petition of Florida State Bar Assn., 40 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1949) seemed to me to be a copy of a legal judgement. As such it is source material and should be published in Wikisource (if copyright permits). For Wikipedia, we write a short article about the petition, explaining its context and its significance. A simpler title of Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 1949 will probably be better. I have e-mailed you your text. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your NPOV hate rant has been deleted. You and your JAIL4Judges friends like Nancy Jo Grant are suing the FL Supreme Court and are trying to to Florida Supreme Court page as a dumping ground, something you admit to in your own emails. http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen/browse_thread/thread/2fba73af47606638 You've been blocked and banned before Bob. Behave. 91.193.130.16 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bob: For the record, this is what you apparently posted at the internet page referred to by the user at IP 91.193.130.16:

You can complaint [sic] against government (if you do it the right way) at Wikipedia. I have written lots of complaints at the US income tax discussion pages, and much of the content is still there. I just added a complaint against the judicial oligarchy formed by Florida Supreme Court's integration of the Florida Bar in 1949. See these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Supreme_Court (note the controversies topic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Florida_Supreme_Court
Truly and sincerely,
Bob Hurt, All Rights Reserved (UCC 1-308)

-- from posting by Bob Hurt at [8].

No, Bob. Wikipedia's discussion pages are not the proper place to air your complaints against the government. (Wikipedia article pages are not the proper places for such things either, for that matter.) And there is no "right way" to abuse Wikipedia for those purposes.

Wikipedia editors are well aware of your past efforts to use Wikipedia pages to push tax protester rhetoric in the form of your "complaints at the US income tax discussion pages," under the user names "BobHurt" and "Bobhurt." You have also posted some tax protester rhetoric in actual articles in the past as well.

Based on the above quoted material, Wikipedia editors might reasonably conclude that you are now trying to incite other internet users to come to Wikipedia and use Wikipedia discussion pages to post their complaints against the government, including perhaps complaints against what you call the "judicial oligarchy" in Florida.

I urge you again to read and adhere to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Florida Supreme Court[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Further attempts to use Wikipedia for advocacy or complaints about the US court system, or anything else, may lead to you being blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
Any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

See a block notice over at User talk:BobHurt. Please respond there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "Now I have to figure out how to use just one account (BobHurt) from now on to avoid confusion." (here). To help you to figure it out, I have blocked this account indefinitely. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nihil dicit, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/NihilDicit.htm. As a copyright violation, Nihil dicit appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nihil dicit has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nihil dicit and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nihil dicit with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nihil dicit.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Bobhurt.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobhurt&oldid=595875491"