User talk:Famspear/Archive 6

Unauthorized practice of law

Famspear, the Unauthorized Practice of Law described in Florida Statutes borders on insanity because it essentially leaves everything up to the Supreme Court's judicial rules, and fails to define "practice of law". You, as a lawyer, should lower the boom on the states by exposing this monopolistic corruption in wikipedia, in an objective, fair, and balanced way, of course. I know I don't have to explain why. Bob Hurt 05:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to ignore these issues. It's not Federal income tax, but it is interesting.

I think you've raised two issues: (1) failure to define the "practice of law" in Florida statutes (leaving it to case law and court-issued rules, etc.); and (2) what you call "monopolistic corruption" -- restricting who can be permitted to practice law.

First, without talking about Florida specifically, I would start out by saying that the U.S. legal system is based on English common law (primarily judge-made law, also called case law). If the Florida legislature wants to enact a statute that defines the practice of law, it can do so. I haven't studied the law of Florida in detail (I'm in Texas). Generally, a statute that contradicts the common law on a particular point is probably going to be deemed to repeal the common law rule. In the absence of a Florida statute or a Florida constitutional provision, the judge-made law is there, and it would remain as the law. That's the American legal system (oversimplified).

Having said that, under the U.S. legal system the regulation of the practice of law is also considered to some extent to be an inherent power of the courts. Just as the legislature has the inherent power to enact statutes and the executive branch (the governor of the state) has the inherent power to enforce the laws, the judicial branch has the inherent power to interpret the law and to some extent to regulate the practice of law -- not just before the courts, but perhaps in general. Again, I'm oversimplifying and leaving out exceptions and qualifications. It's just that this is our American legal system. It's not just Florida.

So, I could probably come up with arguments both pro and con on (1) the failure of the Florida legislature to define the practice of law (if indeed it's not defined in statute), and (2) restricting who is permitted to practice law. But first, what are your arguments? Yours, Famspear 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bloody nose for IRS

Famspear:

Did you read about the Robert Lawrence case? 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, alleviating Lawrence from the obligation to submit the form. The judge dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, and Lawrence walked from at least 4 felony counts.

A bunch of 26 USC 7433 lawsuits against the gov't sit in DCUS in Washington DC right now, and several are on the path for default judgments.

In a recent Texas state court case, the IRS failed to show cause why a Notice of Federal Tax Lien should not be released, and the judge ordered it vacated.

The world needs more lawyers like you to achieve wins like the above.

Read Article I Section 8 Clause 17 (if you don't already have it memorized) and you will find the central reason the IRS has no business operating outside the federal zone - very simply, Congress has no jurisdiction outside that zone, and neither do the Article I District Courts they have created (which hear both civil and criminal IRS-related cases in which judges usually rule in favor of the IRS). Neither and Article I court nor the IRS has jurisdiction outside the federal zone.

Note that a "district" is ONLY the land inside the federal zone. So a district court does not reign over (for example) the entirety of the land within the boundaries of the counties defined as the "middle district of Florida." It reigns only over the FEDERAL land within those boundaries (the federal zone land in those counties). In Florida, that amounts to very little land -military based, arsenals, dock yards, federal office buildings, national parks, VA HOspital land, and other land ceded to the federal government along with jurisdiction.

For that matter, all jurors and District and Circuit Federal judges must live in the "district." You will find that nearly none of them do (I believe actually NONE do, but I suppose a military wife who lives in government housing on a military base might find herself on a jury, so maybe NONE would't be the appropriate word to use.

You, being a very smart lawyer who is very good with taxes, probably already know all that. But why haven't you put it on Wikipedia????

I'll bet if I put it on Wikipedia, you'd delete it, wouldn't you?

You never got back to me on the comments I wrote about all the Supreme Court rulings that proved the 16th amendment did not authorize income taxes, nor that "income" refers only to corporate gain. Have you read Bob Schulze's Statement of Beliefs (see http://givemeliberty.org - you'll find an excellent analysis ther of the Lawrence use of the APA).

Bob Hurt 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt:

I have responded on your talk page (the new one). I first should address your comments from back in May. I will try to get to that in the next couple of days.

Regarding the materials above, 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 stated 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 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt: While I'm working on the other comments, here are some things to chew on regarding the phony, old, tired, "tax forms have to have an OMB number" argument raised by Lawrence. It didn't work for Lawrence (his case was dismissed for an entirely different reason, as noted above), and it didn't work for any other taxpayers either. Taxpayers have tried the "lack of an OMB control number" and "Paperwork Reduction Act" arguments many times, to no avail.

There is no legal requirement that an IRS form bear an OMB number in order for a taxpayer to be legally obligated to file Federal income tax returns and pay the related taxes, and there is no requirement of an OMB number in order for the taxpayer to be properly convicted of tax crimes. Those obligations are imposed by statute (see for example 26 U.S.C. § 1; 26 U.S.C. § 6011; 26 U.S.C. § 6012; 26 U.S.C. § 6151; 26 U.S.C. § 6651; 26 U.S.C. § 7201; and 26 U.S.C. § 7203) and therefore cannot be obviated by presence or lack of an OMB control number on a tax form. In addition, title 5, section 1320.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations (which is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act regs) specifically provides (in part):

§ 1320.6 Public protection.

(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 the requirements of this part if:

(1) The collection of information does not display, in accordance with §1320.3(f) and §1320.5(b)(1), a currently valid OMB control number assigned by the Director in accordance with the Act [ . . . ]

(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. §6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return) [ . . . . ]

5 C.F.R. sec. 1320.6 (bolding added).

Have taxpayers tried these kinds of arguments before? Yes. Do taxpayers always lose on these kinds of arguments? Yes. See for example Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,490 (7th Cir. 1992); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,581 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,575 (6th Cir. 1990); McDougall v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 1405, T.C. Memo 1992-683 (1992), aff'd per curiam without opinion, 15 F.3d 1987 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Barker, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,490 (N.D. Calif. 1990).

Sorry. Catch you later. Yours, Famspear 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. I also added a section called "More about OMB control numbers" below. Yours, Famspear 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt: Regarding the "Federal zone" argument, sorry. Go back and read U.S. Const., art. I, section 8, clause 17. It does not say that the IRS has no business operating outside the federal zone. It also does not say that Congress has no jurisdiction outside that zone. These kinds of arguments have been raised several times by tax protesters, and no court has ever upheld these arguments. Further, the Federal courts have jurisdiction in, well, the United States of America -- that includes a lot more than just the District of Columbia (the federal zone). The tax law applies in all fifty states AND the District of Columbia. Tax protesters always lose on these issues. See, for example, Nelsen v. Commissioner, 65 T.C.M. (CCH) 2530, T.C. Memo 1993-189 (1993); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 94-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,366 (6th Cir. 1994); Abbs v. Imhoff, 99-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,652 (W.D. Mich. 1999). Yours, Famspear 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt: By the way, some tax protesters base the phony "federal zone" argument on an old U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336 (1818). As noted elsewhere in Wikipedia, some tax protesters contend the Bevans case "establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States of America": the "federal zone" and "the 50 States" and that the Internal Revenue Code somehow applies only within the "federal zone." Unfortunately, the Court did not so rule in the Bevans case (or in any other case). Bevans was a murder case where the parties were arguing over whether the court had jurisdiction. No court has ever ruled that the Internal Revenue Code applies only within the "federal zone," and any argument to the contrary is legally frivolous. No issues regarding Federal income taxation or the Internal Revenue Code were presented to or decided by the Court in the Bevans case. The Internal Revenue Code and the IRS did not yet even exist in 1818, when the Bevans case was decided. Another blind alley for tax protesters. Yours, Famspear 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt:

Regarding your statement:

In a recent Texas state court case, the IRS failed to show cause why a Notice of Federal Tax Lien should not be released, and the judge ordered it vacated.

We cannot analyze a Texas state court case you have not cited. To study the case, you have to study the actual text of the court decision, which means you must "cite" the case. To cite the case, you usually need the name of the case (Smith v. Jones, or whatever), the name of the court, the date of decision, and the volume and page number of the case reporter. If the decision is what is known as an "unreported decision" you probably need the case number or docket number (instead of the volume and page number).

At any rate, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the issuance of a certificate of release of a lien under 26 U.S.C. § 6325. For example, if a tax is paid, the related statutory lien (26 U.S.C. § 6321) is extinguished. If a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) has been properly issued and recorded under 26 U.S.C. § 6323 (perfecting the tax lien as against various third parties other than the taxpayer), then the IRS would generally be required to issue a certificate of release under section 6325(a).

Similarly, if the lien became unenforceable by reason of lapse of time (a statute of limitations situation), the taxpayer would be entitled to have the IRS issue a certificate of release. Nothing unusual about that.

These are just some of the reasons the IRS would issue (or would be required to issue, if the IRS failed to issue) a certificate of release of lien.

One of the characteristics of many tax protester arguments I have studied through the years is to falsely claim that a particular court decision or IRS action somehow proves that some frivolous tax protester argument is somehow correct.

In courts of law, the IRS sometimes wins and sometimes loses. In courts of law, the taxpayer sometimes wins and sometimes loses. When you see a reference to a "taxpayer win" on the internet, watch out. "Tax protesters" are just taxpayers like the rest of us, and occasionally tax protesters win in court. However, I have studied thousands of court decisions and I have yet to find one where anyone ever won in court on a tax protester argument. There is a difference!

Tax protesters also raise legitimate points from time to time and tax protesters can win on legitimate points of law like anyone else. Believe me, I have studied many of the cases you have already cited, including the ones you cited back in May. The courts did not rule what the tax protester web sites are telling you the courts ruled! Don't kid yourself. The Federal income tax is completely constitutional. The law is being "applied" legally and properly in most (not all) cases -- regardless of the laughable hogwash you may be reading on the internet. You need study the actual law and the actual legal system, not the fraudulent tax protester rhetoric.

If the IRS were right every time, taxpayers would not need tax lawyers and CPAs. But you have to understand what is going on. There is no gigantic conspiracy to "con" the public about whether the tax law is constitutional, valid, etc., etc. -- except for the impotent, ineffectual conspiracy -- a "con," really -- perpetrated by tax protesters who claim the tax law is not what the law really is. You can refute each and every tax protester argument (and there are gazillions of 'em) point by point IF you know the law. But to do it, you need to know a lot more than just tax law, and you need to know more that what you are reading on tax protester web sites.

Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Dear Bob Hurt: I notice that you have two different accounts set up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BobHurt (the one you were using in May 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobhurt (the new one)

Yours, Famspear 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Bob Hurt's comments from May 2006

Dear Bob Hurt: For a reply to your comments from May of 2006, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BobHurt

Yours, Famspear 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

More about OMB control numbers

Dear Bob Hurt: At the expense of appearing to rub it in, I would also point out that Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, DOES contain the OMB control number, and has since the year 1981! (It's in the upper right corner of page 1 of the form. The short forms, Form 1040A and Form 1040EZ, also bear OMB control numbers.) At least one taxpayer has argued that the regulations and instructions (as opposed to the forms) have to include an OMB control number. That argument has also been rejected by the courts. See, for example, United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,493 (10th Cir. 1991). Again, however, the presence or absence of a control number on a tax form does not eliminate the statutory requirements to file Federal income tax returns and pay the taxes. Oh well. You know, I suspect some of the same people who say that Form 1040 does not include an OMB control number when it obviously does just might be some of the same people who argue that Congress does not have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, even though the Sixteenth Amendment explicitly states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Yours, Famspear 11:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Corporate profits or gain

Dear Bob Hurt: Oh, by the way, regarding the "income means only corporate profit or gain" argument, I assume you are referring to the following verbiage at the web site you referenced (excerpted from http://givemeliberty.org under the Fair Use Doctrine):

In the Federal Mafia, Schiff details how anyone can file a legitimate income tax return, claiming their income as "zero" because the Supreme Court has repeatedly, and consistently, defined the legal term "income" as meaning a "corporate profit or gain" [ . . . . ]

The reference is to a book by Irwin Schiff, a well known tax protester who is currently serving a long prison term for tax crimes. I don't have a copy of the book, but I have seen video clips of Mr. Schiff. He, like many other tax protesters, used to cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509 (1921). Because Merchants' Loan is cited so often by tax protesters, it has been well covered here in Wikipedia. Therefore, the following explanation is paraphrased from an explanation I recently gave to another editor.

The Merchants' Loan "income means only corporate profits argument" is a tired, old, often repeated, discredited tax protester argument that "income" for Federal income tax purposes somehow means only "corporate profits" and not other kinds of income (such as wages, salaries, dividends, interest, rent, gain on sale of stock, etc.) because of a mention by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Merchants’ Loan case of a statute enacted in 1909 that taxed income of corporations (or "corporate profits" or "corporate gain" if you like). The Court in Merchants' Loan did not, however, mention corporate profits or corporate gain. Unfortunately, the holding in Merchants’ Loan essentially contradicts your argument that income means only "corporate profits."

The Supreme Court ruled in Merchants’ Loan that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the specific tax statute applicable at the time (which was a 1916 tax statute, not the 1909 corporate tax statute), a gain on a sale of stock by the estate of a decedent (in that particular case, the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased), is included in the income of that estate, and is therefore taxable to that estate for Federal income tax purposes. The Court was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue involving the taxability of "wages" or "corporate profits" or "corporate gains" or any other kind of income except the gain on the sale of the stock by the estate. An estate’s gain on a sale of stock is not a "corporate profit." The "estate of a decedent" is not a "corporation." The estate of a decedent cannot have "corporate profits" or "corporate gain." The terms "corporate profit" and "corporate gain" do not even appear in the text of the Court’s decision in Merchants’ Loan.

Not only that, but the 1916 tax statute also imposed income taxes on the income of individuals – real, living people. Real, living people are not "corporations" with "corporate profits."

Further, the argument that "income" must somehow mean ONLY "corporate profits" or "corporate gain" – based on a reference in the text of the case to the 1909 corporation tax law -- could not have succeeded as a legal argument in Merchants' Loan even if the taxpayer in the case had actually been a corporation! The Merchants' Loan case is falsely cited over and over on the internet by tax protesters who simply copy and paste from other tax protesters.

Unfortunately, tax protesters have also tried this argument in actual court cases -- and have lost every single time. Here are examples of eight different court cases where tax protesters specifically -- and stupidly -- cited Merchants’ Loan of all cases for the phony "corporate profits" argument -- and LOST THEIR CASES:

Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., 593 F. Supp. 1540, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9845 (N.D. Ind. 1984), aff’d, 773 F.2d 126, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9661 (7th Cir. 1985);

Stoewer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 13, T.C. Memo 2002-167, CCH Dec. 54,805(M) (2002);

Reinhart v. United States, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,658 (W.D. Tex. 2003);

Fink v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 976, T.C. Memo 2003-61, CCH Dec. 55,068(M) (2003);

Flathers v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, T.C. Memo 2003-60, CCH Dec. 55,067(M) (2003);

Schroeder v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 220, T.C. Memo 2002-211, CCH Dec. 54,851(M) (2002), aff’d, 2003-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,511 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1220 (2004);

Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-268, CCH Dec. 56,200(M) (2005);

Ho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-41, CCH Dec. 56,447(M) (2006).

I will put this as bluntly as I can:

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that under the Internal Revenue Code the term "income" means ONLY corporate profits or corporate gain for Federal income tax purposes.

Many people are hoodwinked by tax protesters who make the hilarious argument that income means "only corporate profits" and -- at what must be one of the pinnacles of silliness in tax protester literature -- who cite Merchants' Loan of all cases -- a court decision where (1) the income was not corporate profit, (2) the taxpayer was not a corporation, and (3) the income tax (on that non-corporate income and that non-corporate taxpayer) was nevertheless UPHELD as CONSTITUTIONAL. Yours, Famspear 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sixteenth Amendment and income taxes

Dear Bob Hurt: Regarding your statement regarding "all the Supreme Court rulings that proved the 16th amendment did not authorize income taxes" -- you are technically correct that the Sixteenth Amendment did not "authorize" income taxes.

Federal income taxes are "taxes." This is not rocket science. "Taxes are "authorized" by Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Not just "taxes that are not income taxes." Not just "income taxes as long as they're on labor." Not just "income taxes as long as they're not on labor." Taxes are authorized. That means that Federal income taxes -- taxes on labor, taxes on income from labor, taxes on income from property, taxes on dividends, taxes on interest, taxes on rents, taxes on royalties, taxes on income in the form of huge pots of gold falling from the sky right into my back yard, etc., etc., etc., were already "authorized" long before the Sixteenth Amendment was ever thought about.

The original provisions of the Constitution authorize TAXES, whether direct or indirect, etc., etc. There is absolutely no Constitutional restriction that says the Congress cannot tax incomes. All the Sixteenth Amendment did was remove the requirement -- which had been imposed with respect to certain kinds of income taxes (not all income taxes) by a Court decision in a case called Pollock -- that the dollar amount of income taxes collected as a whole be apportioned among the states pro-rata -- according to each state's pro-rata share of population. This has already been well covered in the court decisions, and in several articles here in Wikipedia.

Again, I will be as blunt as I can be:

Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that any Federal income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional for any reason whatsoever. Nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 makes any income tax under the '86 Code unconstitutional. Further, nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment -- or in any court decision since 1913 -- requires that Federal income taxes of any kind whatsoever be apportioned among the states by population.

Have a good day! Yours, Famspear 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Federal tax trivia question

Since taxes and the U.S. Constitution are so much in discussion lately, here's a trivia question:

What Federal tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 actually WAS ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court some time after January 1, 1998, and why was the tax ruled unconstitutional? Please cite the code section and the court case. Hint: It was NOT the Federal INCOME tax. Anybody want to guess? Yours, Famspear 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another hint (not that this hint will necessarily help you that much in finding the case): It was a unanimous decision. Yours, Famspear 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Harbor Maintenance Tax (or was it fee?), which was determined to be an impermissible tax on exports, and not a permissible user fee, because it exceeded any reasonable estimate of the costs involved? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert A. West: Wow, impressive! You are absolutely right. The 0.125% harbor maintenance tax under 26 U.S.C. § 4461 was unanimously ruled unconstitutional under Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 5, in the case of United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 118 S. Ct. 1290, 98-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,091 (1998). The government had argued that the tax was a "user fee" and not a tax. The Court ruled that it was an unconstitutional tax on exports, as you said. It certainly didn't take you long to nail this one.

PS I know nothing about the case (even though my copy of the decision is sitting right here on my desk). I was just bored this afternoon. Now I don't know what to say (unfortunately I don't have a prize for you as the winner)! Yours, Famspear 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I recalled something about a port user fee that was ruled disproportionate under the Clinton Administration. Guessing that was what you meant, I searched on '"user fee" +tax +unconstitutional +1998' and got the result pretty fast. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer Template

The template {{legaldisclaimer}} is up for deletion. I put in my argument to keep it. You may want to comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tax protester arguments...

...is now subdivided into three articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A mild criticism - you have a penchant for putting things in boldface for emphasis. Although this is persuasive, it's really not very encyclopedic. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it never occurred to me. Good point. Yours, Famspear 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

External links to many decisions.

One of our colleagues recently raised concerns about the sourcing of the tax protester articles. While I agree that they are very well sourced, many of the sources cited are cases to which the average person has no access. However, I find that quatloos has reproduced the text of a good number of particularly scathing tax protester decisions, addressing just about every argument we cover here (the flag gold-fringe case is a real beauty). Cheers! bd2412 T 03:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For the cases cited in Wikipedia that are reproduced in quatloos.com, findlaw.com, etc., should we add a "parallel cite" or footnote link to the text of the decision at quatloos.com etc.? Yours, Famspear 22:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like having citations in footnotes, like a law review article. Increases readability - a footnote can have both the citation, and an external link. Do you know how to add footnotes with the <ref></ref> function? Easy stuff - just put <ref> before the citation at the appropriate point in the text, </ref> after the citation, and <references /> at the bottom of the page; all the refs will show up, neatly numbered under the <references /> tag. bd2412 T 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK -- I'm putting this project on my plate. I can identify the law-related articles to which I have made contributions over the months, and gradually go through them and make this format change. Also, I'll try to locate reliable web sites that reproduce the texts of any decisions cited in the various articles, and link to the texts of the decisions. Mooooorrrre fun! Yours, Famspear 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)