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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Netterville (talk • contribs)

No, Ned. I have not distorted what Irwin Schiff said. No, I am not dishonest or deceptive. And, when it comes to Irwin Schiff and his con game, I know a lot more about the subject than you do.

No, merely repeating a quote from a Code and arguing that it means something other than what it says gets you nowhere.

No, I am not going to post copies of my tax returns on the internet. In fairness, you have no obligation to answer my posed questions, since I am not completely answering your question (except that yes, I have earned a fortune over the years in my tax practice).

Ned, neither I nor anyone else is here to prove anything to you. I am not here to prove anything to you -- or to persuade you of anything. I am here to teach you about Wikipedia, and to teach you about what the law is. I am the teacher, and you are the pupil (whether you accept your role or not). If you are stiff-necked and you refuse to receive or accept the instruction, you are the one who suffers.

Ned, one of the things I have notice about tax protesters over the years is their tendency to hurl false accusations -- just as you do. You use words like "fraud" and "dishonest" and "ignorant" as epithets.

If, for example, I use a term like "fraudster" to describe Irwin Schiff, I can back that up with solid support. However, when you refer to me with a term such as "dishonest", you cannot back up your statement. You are using pejorative epithets as a way of expressing your feelings -- your emotion. That won't work with me.

Your reaction is typical of that of countless tax protesters with whom I have interacted over the years. You seem to feel that other people (at the IRS, in the legal profession, in the accounting profession, in the courts, etc.) should be required to "prove" something to you. You spout nonsense and you expect that other people should take you seriously. Well, no serious person takes your arguments seriously. Your theories are not worthy of serious consideration. Famspear (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And, since you obviously haven't studied Irwin Schiff adequately, let me enlighten you. The following is an excerpt from Schiff, from his "paynoincometax.com" web site (downloaded by me on January 22, 2007):

For tax purposes, "income" only means corporate "Profit"...

For tax purposes, "income" only means corporate "profit." Therefore, no individual receives anything that is reportable as "income."

In another place, either on his web site or in court, he specifically cited the Merchants' Loan case for that hilariously idiotic argument.

Get a clue, Ned. My folder on Tax Protesters on my computer hard drive currently contains 757 sub-folders and 13,222 files. The sub-folder for Irwin Schiff alone currently contains 256 files. I first ran across Schiff back in the 1980s. I've been studying tax protesters in depth on an almost daily basis for the past seventeen years.

Other CPAs and attorneys come to me for advice on Federal tax law matters (not just Federal criminal tax law). I advise clients on these matters, and people pay me big bucks. There is a good reason for that. I predict results, and I get those results for real people in real situations, in IRS audits, in IRS collection matters, in tax refund matters, and in tax disputes in Federal court. Famspear (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, Schiff cited the Merchants' Loan case in United States v. Irwin Schiff, case No. 2:04-CR-00119-1-KJD, No. 2:09-CV-001274-KJD, United States District Court for the District of Nevada (see reference to Schiff's attempt in court opinion on September 21, 2012). Famspear (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And, in Federal court, Schiff filed a "MEMORANDUM THAT THE COURT RECONSIDER ITS ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION". The Memorandum is dated June 25, 2003. In it, Schiff quoted from a separate document he had filed with the Court on May 20, 2003 (begin text of quote from Memorandum):

In the years immediately following the passage of the 16th Amendment the federal courts struggled to determine the meaning of “income” as that term appeared in the 16th Amendment. The constitutional meaning of income ultimately became clarified and fixed by the Supreme Court in the 1921 case of Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smientanka, 255 US 509, 518, 519, which held (quoting merely the last line of a more extensive definition)

There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.

And what was taxable under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, was corporate profit, so, obviously, “corporate profit” is the only thing that can be taxable today under the 1954 Code.

--end of text from Schiff's Memorandum, June 25, 2003, in United States v. Schiff, case no. CV-S-03-0281-LDG-RJJ, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (mis-spelling, punctuation error, and bracketed word "[income]" in Schiff's text). Famspear (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Now, re-read Schiff's exact words, Ned: " ...obviously, “corporate profit” is the only thing that can be taxable today under the 1954 Code. " That is utter baloney. Schiff was a stiff-necked, arrogant criminal. He continued to use this nonsensical argument, no matter how many times the courts ruled it to be erroneous, in his case and in many other cases. Famspear (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

FAMSPEAR, You, not Irwin Schiff, are the stiff-necked, arrogant criminal. You are the con artist who has confessed to earning a fortune off the government's palpable tax fraud, thereby mulcting the fraud's victims among the American public. Obviously, that fact alone disqualifies you from commenting disinterestedly on the subject of the income and employment tax scam. Others reading this exchange can see that I did not interpret the CODE OF CONDUCT OF U.S. JUDGES. I merely quoted verbatim from the CODE, allowing readers to determine the meaning for themselves, and I provided a link to the CODE in its entirety so that one and all could see that I did not take the verbatim words I quoted out of context, as you have done with Schiff's words and as you dishonestly suggest I did. In addition, I provided one and all a link allowing them to purchase of copy of Schiff's magnificent expose′ of the government's income and employment tax scam at a nominal price. To add to all of this, here is a link to Schiif's book that one of his admirers has troubled to make his book freely available on the web in PDF. (Note: it is not the full text. Purchasing the complete book from Amazon for under $5 is the better option.) I should also point out to the readers of this page how federal government dealt with Irwin Schiff's exposure of its tax scam by banning him from selling a subsequent book Schiff published on the scam entitled THE FEDERAL MAFIA; HOW IT ILLEGALLY IMPOSES AND UNLAWFULLY COLLECTS INCOME TAXES. Readers can buy a copy of this banned book from Amazon, or download a free copy here: http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmafia.htm There mere fact of the government's ban on his book serves as the most substantial confirmation of the government's scam that Schiff exposed in his several books.

Even worse than the government's book ban, in order to silence Schiff and maintain its fraudulent collection of the income tax, the government criminally indicted, prosecuted, convicted him in a kangaroo-court proceeding, and the bought-and-paid thug who presided over his case, one US District Court Judge Kent Dawson, sentenced him to 13 years in prison! Schiff died from untreated cancer in prison in October of 2015. It was unquestionable a case of Murder by Judge and Jury, and it successfully and finally silenced Irwin Schiff, the most dangerous man the federal government has faced since the Confederate States seceded from the Union and the federal government responded by going to war, a war that killed 6000,000 Americans. Although it will make your blood boil, readers of this page are referred to this eyewitness account of Schiff kangaroo-court trial. http://takelifeback.com/irwin/ The site also provides insight into the income-tax scam and the government's successful silencing of Schiff. The list of "Further Readings" found on the bottom of the takelifeback.com/irwin link provide all the information one needs to discredit everything Mr. FAMSPEAR has had the temerity to posit here.Ned Netterville (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville

Total baloney, Ned. Sell it to your tax protester crowd. Schiff promoted a tax evasion scheme. His books were part of that scheme.

No, Schiff's trials were not "kangaroo court" proceedings. He got fair trials and he was found guilty by juries of his peers. He was convicted and went to prison.

No, I did not suggest that you quoted something out of context. I said that you quoted a text and falsely claimed that the quoted text means something other than what it says. You were wrong. I was right.

Your reference to Judge Dawson as a "bought-and-paid thug" says volumes, Ned. Your statement that his just punishment was "unquestionable a case of Murder by Judge and Jury" also speaks volumes. You're not helping your case.

When Mr. Schiff passed away, he was (I believe) in a Federal prison medical facility. I have no information on how or to what extent he was being treated for the cancer, and I'm assuming you don't, either -- until and unless you provide some reliable information on the subject. Reliable information, Ned. Ponder the concept a while. Famspear (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: I did not take Schiff's words out of context, either. I said that he cited the Merchants' Loan case for his stupid argument that "income" under the Internal Revenue Code somehow meant only "corporate" profit or "corporate" gain. That was precisely his own argument. I even quoted from his own words, as he had filed them in court. That was his argument, Ned.

So, for you to falsely claim that I was taking his words out of context is consistent with what I have seen with tax protesters over and over and over and over and over again. Famspear (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I am neither stiff-necked, nor arrogant, nor a criminal, nor a con artist. Again, for you to falsely accuse me of such things says volumes, Ned. You use these terms as epithets. You are expressing anger and frustration. These are emotions, not logic.

A person who is stiff-necked is a person who refuses to take instruction -- a person who refuses to follow the rules. The Old Testament speaks of stiff-necked people.

A person who is arrogant is a person who arrogates. To arrogate means to claim something without justification. I have claimed that I am correct about what the law is, and that you are wrong. I am correct. When you, Ned, claim to know the law when you obviously do not, you are arrogating. When I say what the law is, I am correct. So, I do not arrogate. You arrogate.

A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime. Schiff was convicted of Federal tax crimes -- not once, not twice, but three times. Your emotional, ranting use of the word "criminal" as an epithet is not impressive, Ned.

Schiff was a con artist. He claimed to believe that his writings on Federal tax law were correct -- yet he was caught moving and hiding assets to evade having to pay taxes. He knew that the law was not what he claimed the law to be; he simply refused to accept or admit that he was wrong. Famspear (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Time for another lesson, Ned. You have repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against another editor -- me -- by calling me names in your posts. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You will notice that in responding to you, rather than calling you names, I have instead referred to what you have written by correctly identifying what you have written as being false. My approach is the proper approach in Wikipedia. Comment on the material, and do not engage in personal attacks against other editors.

By contrast, Schiff (who was not an editor at Wikipedia) actually was a fraudster -- a convicted fraudster. He actually was a criminal. His books, which you tout as though they were Scripture, were full of fraud. He was repeatedly convicted of federal crimes, not once, not twice, but three times. Those are facts. Further, they are verified facts -- well documented in the article on Schiff.

Again, Ned, for you to falsely engage in personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor at the same time that you falsely hold Schiff up as some sort of hero says volumes. Famspear (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Famspear, you are not a legitimate Wiki editor. You are a shill for the federal government's income tax scam from which you confess to reaping a fortune.

Famspear, You hereby stand corrected: A person convicted on trumped up charges in a federal kangaroo court is not a criminal. Schiff was not a criminal. A criminal is "a person who has committed a crime." Conviction is not a requirement. Innocent people who never committed a crime have often been convicted in government kangaroo courts. (Nor is a conviction possible when the crime is judicial malfeasance since no federal judge would allow a fellow judge to be convicted lest the table be turned.) It doesn't require a conviction to know that palpably biased federal judges who do not disqualify themselves from presiding in "tax protester" criminal or civil cases in which perforce they have a financial interest because taxes pay their wages, are in violation of the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. JUDGES and are worse than common criminals. "If a complaint directed to the judicial commission passes the screening and deposition phases, it is investigated and a trial-like hearing is instituted. Judicial committees typically have the power to sanction a judge and to require a judge to retire or resign. Some commissions, upon a plea of guilty or no contest, are authorized to make a finding of criminal guilt punishable as a felony under state or federal law." Your persistent defense of the federal tax-collection scam and the Malemutes who hustle the fraud, which rewards you so handsomely, speaks volumes about your integrity, or rather your lack thereof. No doubt you are aware that collecting taxes in and of itself fits the definition of the crime of extortion in virtually every U.S. jurisdiction. The only reason all tax collectors aren't in prison is because tax-sucking legislators provide them with immunity to commit their heinous crimes so the legislators, judges and prosecutors can collect their overly generouspay from the proceeds of taxation. The use of force, violence and coercion to obtain one's daily bread is immoral.Ned Netterville (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville