User talk:Ned Netterville

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some links that may be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

"Neutral Point of View": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute (maintenance process, including the rule prohibiting drive-by tagging)

Verifiability

"Verifiability": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)

No Original Research (NOR)

"No Original Research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources (primary, secondary and tertiary sources)

Yours, Famspear 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tax

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Tax. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

July 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Tax. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. WP is not a place for the posting of opinion pieces written by non-experts. – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Voluntaryism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Citing Bible verses does not constitute independent research that supports what you want to say. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Irwin Schiff

Dear Ned: I see that you are still up to your tricks (in this case, at the article on Irwin Schiff a few weeks ago). The government actually prosecutes very few people who are known to have committed federal tax crimes. Only about 2,000 to 3,000 are prosecuted every year. So, for you to try to imply, in the article -- with your own commentary -- that the government somehow struggled to get convictions of Schiff's supporters is misleading, and is undocumented original research. The government was very successful.

In fact, so far as is known, no follower of Schiff has ever been acquitted of federal tax crimes. Of all the con artists who have promulgated tax protester arguments, he has the dubious distinction of having had the highest number of followers convicted. That's not something he should have been proud of. Helping to ruin other people's lives is also something he should not have been proud of. Famspear (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dearest Famspear, I see you are still up to your old habit of dishonesty. To correct the record: No follower of Irwin Schiff, nor Irwin Schiff himself, has ever been convicted in a court in a case wherein the presiding judge was not being directly compensated with munificent emoluments by the party opposing Schiff (viz., The United States)or any of his followers. All of the judges in those cases were on the payroll of the opposing party and receiving financial compensation from the opposing party in flagrant violation of the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES ), specifically, and I quote: "Canon 3, Section(C) Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:...(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;..."

Furthermore, the very taxes (viz., federal income and other employment taxes) that Schiff and his followers were challenging constituted the very source of the judges munificent pay and benefits, so that the question of the judges' having a personal, financial interest is beyond dispute.

As for your incoherent comment that "no follower of Schiff has ever been acquitted of federal tax crimes," that deceptive sophistry ignores the crucial fact that only relatively few of Schiff's tens of thousands of followers have ever been charged with federal tax crimes, and all of those few convictions were in courts wherein the judges' judicial integrity was palpably compromised for being paid by the party bringing charges against those innocent victims. Convictions in courts where it is indisputable that the judges have been bought by the prosecution and paid for with the proceeds from federal taxes are badges of honor for standing up to the criminals participating in the federal tax fraud.

Those lives you refer to as being ruined were ruined by those Malemutes, as Schiff appropriately called them, who were posing as disinterested federal judges. Schiff obviously had nothing to do with those unlawful prosecution of which you seem so proud. That was the work of the thugs in the IRS, DOJ and federal judiciary. Did you have a hand in those crimes?Ned Netterville (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville

That's baloney. No, nothing I have written is dishonest. No, my comment about followers of Schiff is not "incoherent." And no, my comment is not deceptive, and no it's not sophistry. And, no, you're not "correcting" the record. You're repeating frivolous tax protester arguments. The idea that because federal judges are paid from the U.S. Treasury, they can't be impartial in a Federal tax case is blatant nonsense. This is garbage that tax protesters have already tried in court. A judge's impartiality cannot be "reasonably questioned" in a tax case merely because the judge is paid from the Treasury. No, the integrity of judges is not "palpably compromised." No federal judge has ever been "bought by the prosecution" in a federal tax case. You are wrong.

The federal income tax system is not a "fraud." It is mind-numbingly complex, it is sometimes unfair. It is not a "fraud." No, the prosecution of those who followed Schiff was not "unlawful."

The Internal Revenue Service is aware of thousands and thousands of people every year who commit federal tax crimes. Only about two to three thousand per year are actually prosecuted. The decision to prosecute is not made by the Internal Revenue Service. Famspear (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Famspear, my dear, are you unable to read the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES, which I took the trouble to quote to you? All of your silly "no," "no," "nos," can't change the facts as I've presented them here, so please stop your whining. Furthermore, you are unfit to comment on Irwin Schiff or the federal tax scam he brought to light in his numerous books, particularly in his masterpiece, THE GREAT INCOME TAX HOAX (1985), in which he presented irrefutable evidence of the conspiracy and fraud being perpetrated by those who forcibly take and positively benefit from federal taxes, because of you own beneficial interest as a tax lawyer in the government's tax scam. Schiff's HOAX, by the way, remains the most authoritative history of taxation in America from colonial times to the present. As a member of the federal tax industry that benefits greatly from the federal tax fraud, you are as compromised by your beneficial interest in the scam as those Malemutes who call themselves federal judges and those tax-paid prosecutors at the DOJ who shill for the scam, who are bought and paid for by revenues from the tax scam. The judges, prosecutors and tax-industry sycophants like you have, as the CODE OF CONDUCT states, have "a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy...that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;..." and you are thereby disqualified to state an unbiased, honest opinion here. Rest assured, my dear Famspear, that all reasonable people, like those who wrote the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES, and those who read this page, will recognize immediately that judges and prosecutors who are paid from the proceeds of federal income taxes are unfit to prosecute or judge cases against those who challenge the legality of those taxes or the unlawful manner of their collection.Ned Netterville (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville

You don't present facts, Ned. You present frivolous tax protester arguments. And yes, I am fit to comment. No, I am not disqualified. My opinions are unbiased and honest.

It is easy to refute what you write, Ned. Famspear (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Famspear, dear, if you think you can refute what I write, why not try. So far your arguments amount to "Nah, nah, boo, boo, I'm right and you're wrong. Nah, nah, nah!"

I've presented the CODE OF CONDUCT. That is a fact. You have no means of discrediting it or my use of it as evidence of the federal judiciary's culpability in the federal employment-tax fraud. Please don't bother with any more frivolous comments until you have something concrete to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Netterville (talk • contribs)

I've already refuted what you wrote -- by saying "no." Because you offer no facts and, importantly, no support for your positions, it is easy to refute what you say. I simply say "no." Nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct supports the preposterous position you take.

By the way, the word is "canon," not "cannon." A "canon" is a kind of rule. A "cannon" is a type of artillery piece.

No, your quote from the Code of Conduct is not a "fact" -- not in the sense that you mean. You're simply quoting from a rule -- and then you are falsely arguing that the rule means something other than what it says.

Please don't bother with any more frivolous arguments, Ned. YOU need to have something concrete to offer.

No, Schiff knew exactly what he was doing -- just as you do.

For example, Schiff cited the famous Supreme Court case of Merchants' Loan for the goofy argument that under the U.S. federal income tax system, "income" somehow meant only "corporate profit" or "corporate gain" -- where the very income that was ruled by the Court in that very case to be income was not corporate profit or corporate gain. Duuhhh...... His unwillingness to accept what the Court actually ruled in that case was on about the same level as your unwillingness to accept that the Code of Judicial Conduct does not mean what you want it to mean.

You're not fooling anyone, Ned. Famspear (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, can you say what your personal experience has been with the U.S. federal tax system, other than filing returns and paying taxes (without providing any sensitive personal information)?

1. Have you ever had a tax return audited (examined) by the Internal Revenue Service?

2. If so, what was the result?

3. Have you ever been involved in a dispute over taxes in a Federal court (U.S. Tax Court, U.S. District Court, etc.)?

4. If so, what was the result?

5. Ever had a family member or friend who was audited, or was involved in a court dispute over taxes? Famspear (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you are still touting the "all federal judges should be disqualified from deciding federal tax cases" nonsense, and that you still claim to believe that there is a "conspiracy and fraud being perpetrated by those who forcibly take and positively benefit from federal taxes", is interesting. Look at this wacky thread you started at the Quatloos forum back in June of 2008: [1]. Famspear (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Famspear, my dear boy, you repeat yourself in saying nothing. I repeat myself by citing the indisputable fact of the CODE OF CONDUCT OF FOR UNITED STATES JDGES, and quoting directly from it, to wit: "Canon 3, Section(C) Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:...(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;..."

Only an ignorant person unable to read and reason will fail to see that in a tax proceeding in a federal court wherein a so-called "tax protester" is challenging the constitutional legality of a tax in which every federal judge has a personal, beneficial interest in the form of his or her munificent federal salary and overly generous benefits, that that fact alone disqualifies every federal judge from presiding in said case. That is not an interpretation of the CODE, that is precisely what the CODE requires in plain English. Heavily influenced by their personal, financial stake in the proceeds from the unconstitutional enFORCEment of federal income and employment taxes, federal judges, prosecutors and other beneficiaries of the proceeds from said taxes are, by the logic of the CODE, disqualified from judging, indicting or even rationally commenting on the subject matter of income and employment tax cases. I believe I can count on every intelligent reader of this page understanding the CODE and what I have written, and recognizing your frivolous arguments as biased bs. If the readers here follow the link you provided to the comments on the IRS-directed Quatloos website, they will also clearly see that nothing that was said there discredits my point nor alters the logic and the disqualifying effect of the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. JUDGES.

The cannon I used to blow that huge hole in your frivolous arguments is Canon 3 of the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. JUDGES. Live with it.

Regarding your comment about Schiff citing the Supreme Court's "ruling" in the "Merchants Loan" case, and calling it goofy, you egregiously and dishonestly distorted what Schiff had to say about the ruling in that case. More importantly, in his magnum opus, The Great Income Tax Hoax: Why You Can Immediately Stop Paying This Illegally Enforced Tax, which is available at Amazon for under $5, Schiff vividly provided somewhere between 30 and 40 logical reasons why the federal income tax and the manner in which government agents coercively and/or violently enforce it, violates the Constitution and severely damages the so-called "rule of law," and the Declaration of Independence's promise of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I call the readers attention to Schiff's classical history and dissection of America's tax laws, and offer it as proof of the government's fraudulent enforcement and in refutation of the nonsense Famspear regurgitates here.

As for your questions regarding my personal experience with the government's income tax fraud, I will gladly answer all of them, IF you will first answer one question of mine, and provide proof that in answering you are not being dishonest or deceptive, as you are prone to be.

My question is this: How much money have you personally earned from you federal income-tax practice as a lawyer and CPA over the past decade?

I will accept as evidence that you are not lying copies of your federal income-tax returns (your 1040s) for the years 2006 through 2015. You may post them on your own website or any website as long as those returns are freely available to Internet users.

I look forward to hearing back from you on my quid pro quo offer (as you legal beagles might put it). Chow.