User talk:Dscotese

9/11

I thank you for your -partial- support in the passport matter !  — Xiutwel ???? (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't encourage people to break the law. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous whistleblowers

Please don't add irrelevant material like that. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of how to improve articles not to push our own opinions whatever they may be. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

As a conspiracy theorist myself, I am well aware of the implicit threat to those close to the conspirators. For this reason, I started looking up "anonymous whistleblowing" on Google. I would recommend this search to anyone who feels pressured into defending positions with which they are becoming more and more disillusioned.

Martin Luther King Jr. (yes the one who was assassinated April 4, 1968) said "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right." Dscotese (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I thank you for you above contribution to Talk:9/11. I like Kings' quote, and quoted you above. I do understand though, why it was deleted there. You seemingly were trying to help people make the right choice, where they are convinced they need no help! I am currently involved in mediation on the name of an article - that's how small the steps are here... Keep doing what you feel is right, Dscotese, and thank you. But be mindful that the herd may not be able to follow you, and that they will turn on you when you push them to hard.  — Xiutwel ???? (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have fear too

• I walk every morning.
• I don't eat a lot of junk food.
• I eat a banana and drink milk just about every day.

These things make me strong and healthy.

It's easy for me to show honest and humble people when they are wrong, and I can also easily see when I am wrong with a little help from others.

Here at Wikipedia, the audience is vast, and so those with hidden agendas put a lot of work into deceptively promoting their biases. Some of them are working for very powerful people. If I piss them off enough, they may wish to murder me. It is often easier for a person in power to kill what they don't like rather than to give up what should not be theirs - and wikipedia should not be theirs. I hope that I do not become a martyr - I would really like to see the good changes that my work here can help bring about.

I am specifically referring to the attack of September 11, 2001. It seems to me that an unbiased presentation of the facts surrounding it would lead most people to believe that the US government or some part of it was complicit in the attacks. This conclusion may be incorrect, but so many people try to bias Wikipedia's presentation that the bias itself only increases the suspicion. Examine the talk pages of controversial topics, and if you don't have a bias either way, you'll be able to see how this works. Dscotese (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:99burning.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:99burning.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ?^xplicit 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dscotese. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Famspear on Taxes

As you see below, Famspear has been either

• Attempting to protect and preserve the fraud being perpetrated on Americans by the government through the IRS, or
• Attempting to save someone (me) who has been bamboozled by a tax cheat and fraud from an expensive lesson.

In case I am wrong about which of these motivations lies behind Famspear's extensive writings on the subject, I want to thank Famspear for trying to help me. As I posted at [The Missing Frivolous Argument], the best help would come straight from the horse's mouth, and that "solution" would certainly stem the tide of refunds from which the USA's revenue department is suffering because of Hendrickson. I've been trying to help as many people I know find the best way to maximize the compassion, peace, and freedom human beings can enjoy, and part of that effort requires that we use whatever tools we have at our disposal to weaken the forces that oppose compassion, peace, and freedom. I don't think further effort on my part can help Famspear, but wanted to provide anyone else who reads this with the same opportunities to see what's going on that I've had.

Those who wish to examine these issues more closely can read through Hendrickson's site, and then examine all the material Famspear has provided here and on his own talk page in response to the points I made there. Some of the evidence isn't as obvious as the rest. You will notice that Famspear exhibits an intense dislike of Hendrickson as far as the writing below indicates. The feeling that comes across to me reminds me of [The Seedy Ad Hominem].

I would like to provide an explanation of why, if my understanding of the accepted way legal system works is incorrect, I would find some other way to "avoid supporting the criminal organization we call 'the federal government.'" I don't have to do it here, because it has been written in several ways at [The Voluntaryist] already. Dscotese (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jury nullification

Dear Dscotese: In the interest of full disclosure regarding my comment on the talk page for the Jury nullification article, I have been studying Hendrickson and the "Cracking the Code" tax evasion scheme pretty intensively since about May of 2007. I am one of the regular posters at quatloos dot com. Hendrickson has a long and uniformly unsuccessful history with respect to his changing "theories" about the U.S. federal income tax. He has held on to his current "theory" for about the last decade or so, but his "federal privilege" nonsense is just the most recent frivolous manifestation of his criminal aversion to the federal income tax. I say "criminal" in the literal sense of course, because (as I believe you know) he has spent two terms in federal prison because of tax convictions. Back in the early 1990s, he went to prison for a federal tax conviction and that was long before he came up with the "federal privilege" idiocy.

His wife's trial for criminal contempt of court is scheduled to begin later this month (actually, her second trial, as the first trial last year ended in a hung jury). And the federal tax misery for Pete and his wife continues, now, in the United States Tax Court. He and his wife are still battling the IRS, as he filed a petition in Tax Court on March 26th -- something that he has not mentioned on his web site, as far as I see.

I am fascinated by his followers -- people who essentially seem to believe that 99% of all tax lawyers, CPAs, law professors and federal judges are mistaken or corrupt when it comes to the supposed "truth" about the federal income tax, and who yet believe that Hendrickson, whose experience is in video arcade management and apartment complex maintenance management, who has zero legal and accounting training or experience, who has admitted that he did not file tax returns for over ten years (prior to coming up with his latest scheme, if I recall correctly), somehow has the "truth" -- even though every single court has rejected his nonsense (sometimes by mentioning him and his "book" by name). Famspear (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it already, here is a detailed background on Hendrickson: [1]. See if you can find even one incorrect statement in the entire piece. There isn't one. Famspear (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Famspear,

I've seen and dismissed the tpgurus page in the past because it has lots of facts and no reasoning. Hendrickson points to a lack of response regarding claims he makes both in his book and in his court cases and I find such lack of responses convincing. But thanks for the warning. Dscotese (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dscotese: You're welcome. The tpgurus page reports reality: the reality of what the law is, and the reality of what happens to some of the people who get involved in the scams. By "no reasoning," I assume that you mean that you don't like (or agree with) what you see on the page. Be assured, everything there is accurate.

Hendrickson is an ex-con and a liar. He and his book have been specifically mentioned by name in federal court decisions, and in every single case, without exception, his scam has been exposed for what it is. Famspear (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Famspear,

The evidence Hendrickson presents on his website indicates that you were lying or misinformed when you wrote "and in every single case, without exception, his scam has been exposed for what it is." I recommend that others go through the evidence there (and at tpgurus if they want to see what he's talking about) to find out for themselves. Dscotese (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dscotese: No, Hendrickson does not present any "evidence" on his web site that I have ever "lied" or been "misinformed" about anything. I've been through his web site many times. I've been studying Hendrickson for over six years. What Hendrickson presents is his own argument -- his own specious argument. His analysis is incorrect. His skill at analysis of legal materials is no better than his ability to stay out of federal prison for using his tax evasion scam. Famspear (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to point out a mistake in your reasoning, and in that of Hendrickson and other tax protesters. Above, you say you "dismissed the tpgurus page in the past because it has lots of facts and no reasoning." You also say that "Hendrickson points to a lack of response regarding claims he makes both in his book and in his court cases and I find such lack of responses convincing." These are fundamental errors on your part, and on Hendrickson's part. The tpgurus page does not "need" to provide the "reasoning" that you feel you need. That page is there to teach you, not to persuade you with "reasoning" that somehow satisfies you.

Hendrickson is wrong when he implies that others must somehow "respond" to the claims he makes. The rest of the world is not under some sort of duty to respond to Hendrickson, or to take each of his claims and refute them. Hendrickson's arguments are legally frivolous. They are not worthy of serious consideration. In order to fully understand WHY that is the case, you (or Hendrickson) would need to be trained and experienced in legal analysis.

However, the courts have indeed rejected Hendrickson's nonsense -- over and over. The fact is that Hendrickson refuses to accept what the courts have ruled.

Sorry, but that does not change anything. Whether Hendrickson refuses to accept what the courts have ruled does not change the situation: Under our legal system, the courts decide what the law is, not Mr. Hendrickson. Famspear (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracking the Code

Dear Dscotese: At the talk page on jury nullification, you wrote:

• "Taxable Income" can only mean what a person gets by exercising some kind of federal privilege, so those who exercise no such privilege are not liable for the tax.

No, that is incorrect as a matter of law. And, as noted elsewhere, that position has been rejected by every single court that has considered it. No exceptions. We’ll get to that below.

But first, you also wrote:

When this position appears in the list of positions determined by the secretary to be frivolous, then I will have to find another way to avoid supporting the criminal organization we call "the federal government."

Ah, your commentary is not about what the law is. This is about your search for some rationale for not paying federal income tax.

Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson and other protesters do the same thing. Hendrickson has admitted that he refused to file federal income tax returns for sixteen years under a completely different nonsensical theory – long before he ever came up with his “Cracking the Code” nonsense:

On his web site, Hendrickson has disclosed that he had a history of sixteen years of non-filing of federal income tax returns prior to the time of his first conviction in 1992. According to information filed by the Department of Justice in Hendrickson's latest criminal case [ . . . ], Hendrickson's contentions regarding the federal income tax have changed over time. After he was released from prison, Hendrickson allegedly filed tax returns that accurately reported his wages and income, but he altered the jurat (the "under penalty of perjury" language near the signature space) on his tax return to show his disagreement with the income tax on wages. According to the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service began refusing to accept Hendrickson’s returns beginning with the year 2000 return, as a document with an altered jurat has been held by the courts not to be a valid federal income tax return.

--from Hendrickson’s dossier (copyright by Daniel B. Evans, excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine).

Like other tax protesters, Hendrickson has hopped around from one theory to another, as it suited him.

You wrote:

If you'd like to help, something more concrete than "that is utter nonsense" would be better.

OK.

First, let’s look at examples of Hendrickson’s "government privilege" nonsense – from his own writings:

".....unprivileged, outside-of-federal-geographical-jurisdiction work cannot be taxed indirectly by the federal government." ---From p. 10, Peter E. Hendrickson, Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America (12th Printing, Jan. 2010).

".....private-sector proceeds of work (in particular) cannot be taxed under an 'income' tax." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from p. 25, Cracking the Code.

".....'income', 'wages', 'self-employment income', 'employee', 'employer' and 'trade or business' – as these and certain other terms are used within, and in regard to, the tax law – have narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from introductory material, Cracking the Code.

".....the law doesn't apply the income tax to his or her [an individual's] non-federally-connected earnings....." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from his "Cracking the Code" web site forum.

All that is false – every bit of it.

First, let’s look at court decisions on the “privilege” nonsense that pre-date “Cracking the Code,” and then we’ll look at some of the “Cracking the Code” decisions.

Cases pre-dating Hendrickson’s Cracking the Code nonsense:

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has stated: "There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors." See Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), at [2].

In United States v. Buras, the argument that the taxpayer can be subject to an excise tax (specifically, the federal income tax) only if he benefits from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980), at [3]. This is the very earliest court case I have found where anyone raised the “privilege” argument.

See also Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 320 (D. Minn. 1983), at [4] (...."the plaintiffs' position that they are entitled to a complete [federal income tax] refund because they received no governmental privileges during the tax year is without merit....")

See also Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9208 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), at [5].

See also Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), [6].

See also Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), at [7] ("This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous [ . . . ] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.")

See also May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985), at [8] (Taxpayer's argument -- that because he "enjoys no grant of privilege or franchise", he is not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected. A penalty was imposed for engaging in frivolous litigation.)

See also Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), at [9] (Taxpayer's argument -- that an excise such as the federal income tax may be imposed only on "government granted privileges" was rejected.)

See also Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam), at [10] (Taxpayer's argument -- that because he was a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government", he was not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected.)

See also Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986), at [11] (Taxpayer's argument -- that because she "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government", she was not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected.)

See also Prout v. United States, 31 Fed Appx. 624, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,304 (10th Cir. 2002) (not for public.)

Some Cracking the Code cases:

Joseph Alan Fennell was a follower of the Cracking the Code tax scam. Fennell was a poster at the lost horizons web site. Fennell's arguments — that the compensation he received in exchange for non-federally privileged private sector labor was not taxable, and that non-federally privileged private sector labor is not the subject of an excise (the U.S. federal income tax) — were rejected by the United States Tax Court. See Fennell v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26285-07L, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (June 17, 2008).

Rusty Ragan was another poster at the losthorizons web site. In his Cracking the Code case, he argued that he was due a federal tax refund because his compensation constituted "earnings for private-sector, non-federally-privileged work" that he had performed as an engineer for his employer. The Tax Court ruled that the argument was "frivolous and groundless," and imposed a separate penalty of $5,000 under section 6673 for engaging in frivolous litigation. Ragan v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11966-08L, United States Tax Court, Order and Decision (Feb. 19, 2009).

In yet another Cracking the Code case involving an individual named David Nelson, the magistrate judge (and the U.S. district court) stated: "The fact that Northwest [Nelson's employer] is a 'private sector company, which is not owned or operated on behalf of the United States' [ . . . ] is immaterial to the question of whether the remuneration Northwest paid Nelson for his work was 'compensation for services' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1). It clearly was." Nelson v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-00508-MCR-EMT, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Dec. 7, 2009), aff'd, No. 10-10730, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Aug. 12, 2010) (unpublished) ("We have repeatedly rejected arguments, such as Nelson's, asserting that private sector employment income is not subject to federal taxation.").

The federal privilege argument also fails under a legal doctrine known as the James Doctrine -- for the simple reason that the federal income tax is imposed on illegal income. There is no federal privilege allowing you to commit a crime. Under the James Doctrine, as explained in a U.S. Supreme Court decision over fifty years ago, the receipt of money by an embezzler is included in the income of that embezzler under the Internal Revenue Code, even though the money does not belong to the embezzler, and even though he is required to return the money to its rightful owner. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961). As the Supreme Court has stated, "An unlawful gain, as well as a lawful one, constitutes taxable income when its recipient has such control over it that, as a practical matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it." Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952), at [12].

The argument that the federal income tax can be imposed only on amounts received while the individual is engaged in an activity in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege is also incorrect for the simple reason that an indirect tax (an "excise") does not need to relate to an activity at all, much less an activity involving a “federal privilege.”

For example, one of the points made by the Supreme Court in explaining its holdings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, no. 11-393; no. 11-398; no. 11-400 (slip opinion, U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012) is: The Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity (page 41 of the slip opinion). The tax in that case is the "shared responsibility payment," the penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code imposed on certain persons who do not purchase health insurance. That section 5000A tax is not an income tax but, like the federal income tax, it is generally considered to be an excise (an indirect tax) for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. Not only is the section 5000A tax not connected to an activity involving a federal privilege, it is not connected to an activity at all. Indeed, the point that it is a tax on inactivity (a failure to purchase insurance) was one of the objections raised by those opposed to the tax in the National Federation case -- and the Supreme Court rejected that objection by noting that the Congress can indeed validly impose an excise -- an indirect tax (which of course does not have to be apportioned) -- on inactivity.

Peter Hendrickson is under a federal court order never to use the scam again on his own tax returns. See United States v. Hendrickson, 2007 WL 2385071, at *3, 100 A.F.T.R.2nd 2007-5395, No. 06-11753, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Feb. 26, 2007, amended May 2, 2007), aff'd, No. 07-1510, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (June 11, 2008) (sanctions of $4,000 imposed for frivolous appeal), reh'g en banc denied (Dec. 16, 2008), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 08-1399 (June 15, 2009), reh'g denied, U.S. Supreme Court (August 17, 2009). Indeed, he spent time in federal prison (from June 29, 2010 to June 13, 2012) for using the scam on his own tax returns. See generally United States v. Hendrickson, 2010 TNT 81-15, n. 5, No. 2:08-cr-20585-DML-DAS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (April 26, 2010), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, No. 10-1726, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Feb. 8, 2012) (conviction affirmed; sentencing vacated and remanded for re-sentencing), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1345 (June 11, 2012).

Yet another example: Federal estate taxes. The federal estate tax is an excise, not a direct tax. The federal estate tax is a tax on the transfer of property at death. If the value of your taxable estate exceeds a certain amount at the time of death ($5,340,000 for persons dying in 2014), the federal estate tax may be incurred. Dying and leaving your assets to someone else is not the exercise of a federal privilege.

Same thing for the federal gift tax. It’s an excise on transfer of property during your life. If you give, in any one year, to any one person such as your child, assets having a value of over a certain amount, you may be liable for the gift tax. Giving money or other property to your child is not the exercise of a federal privilege.

The federal income tax, the federal estate tax, and the federal gift tax are all examples of “excises” (as that term is used in the U.S. constitutional law sense). Yet, none of these taxes requires the presence of the exercise of a federal privilege.

But, you’ve already been shown the court decisions. And yet you reject them. That tells me that you don’t really care about what the law is. You’re really just trying to justify your own belief.

Referring to the court decisions as “bad and disingenuous behaviors on the part of courts” is just another way of saying, in Hendricksonian fashion, that the courts are corrupt. You people cite court cases when you mistakenly feel it’s to your advantage to do so, but you reject the court cases that you feel you are unable to re-interpret to suit your own belief. Yet, in none of the court cases you people cite did the courts rule the way you claim the courts ruled, and in all the cases I cite the courts did reject the very beliefs you hold.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax from 1913 to 1919, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone in that decade ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1920s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1930s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1940s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1950s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1960s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1970s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

It was not until the year 1980, in the Buras case, that anyone ever came up with this goofy theory. And yet, Hendrickson's followers would like to have us believe that Video Arcade Manager Man discovered a "truth" about federal income taxation that escaped everyone in the United States (including every taxpayer, every tax lawyer, every tax law professor, and every federal judge) for over sixty years.

I find it interesting that followers of Hendrickson reject all the court decisions and claim to believe that 99.9999% of all tax lawyers, CPAs, federal judges, etc., are mistaken or corrupt, and yet eagerly assert -- as their only tax law authority -- the claims of a guy with zero legal, tax or accounting training or experience, whose life experiences are in video arcade management and apartment complex maintenance management, and who has served not one but two terms in federal prison for tax convictions, and who can't win under his own theory in his own federal criminal and civil tax cases. Famspear (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, you asked a question about this case: Prout v. United States, 31 Fed Appx. 624, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,304 (10th Cir. 2002) (not for public.). Regarding your question, the term "not for public." means "not for publication". That's just a notation made by the courts in many cases. However, the courts still publish those cases anyway, and private legal publishers still re-publish them. For this case, the text is found in volume 31 of a publication called the "Federal Appendix" (by West Publishing Company, now part of Thomson Reuters), beginning on page 624. It's also published by CCH, in "U.S. Tax Cases," in volume 2002-1, at paragraph 50,304. Famspear (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

More on the CtC scam

You stated on my talk page that "Hendrickson makes no claim to the contrary" regarding the statement that there is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on a taxpayer's labors. You are wrong. Hendrickson does indeed claim that the federal income tax is limited, under the Constitution, to taxes on amounts received in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege. The basis of his argument is that the federal income tax cannot apply to any other kind of income.

You also stated: "You may have missed the definitions in Title 26 of 'taxpayer' or the Classification Act of 1923, or both."

Dave, you're still not catching on.

I have been studying tax law for over 35 years. I have been officially recognized in federal court as expert on federal tax law. I have been studying tax protesters for the past 15 years, and I have been studying Hendrickson's scam in particular since May of 2007. I know very well the definition of "taxpayer" in the Code, and I know how tax protesters mis-interpret the term. And I know that the Classification Act has absolutely nothing to do with whether the federal income tax applies as Hendrickson claims it applies. You have to understand: I have seen tax protesters cite the Classification Act over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Dave, there is almost nothing that you can copy and paste from the internet regarding tax protester arguments that I have not already seen and studied extensively. Famspear (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what Hendrickson argues, in his own words:

".....unprivileged, outside-of-federal-geographical-jurisdiction work cannot be taxed indirectly by the federal government." ---From p. 10, Peter E. Hendrickson, Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America (12th Printing, Jan. 2010).

That statement is incorrect as a matter of law. And it's not merely a statutory argument on Hendrickson's part. It's an argument about the constitutionality of applying a federal income tax to "outside-of-federal-geographical jurisdiction work," to use Hendrickson's phrase.

Hendrickson states:

".....private-sector proceeds of work (in particular) cannot be taxed under an 'income' tax." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from p. 25, Cracking the Code.

That is incorrect. That is an argument about the constitutionality of taxing "private-sector proceeds of work," and it is an incorrect statement.

Hendrickson states:

".....'income', 'wages', 'self-employment income', 'employee', 'employer' and 'trade or business' – as these and certain other terms are used within, and in regard to, the tax law – have narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from introductory material, Cracking the Code.

That is false. These terms do NOT have "narrow legal meanings" exclusively involving "certain privileged activities" as described by Hendrickson. Wrong. Completely wrong.

Hendrickson wrote:

".....the law doesn't apply the income tax to his or her [an individual's] non-federally-connected earnings....." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from his "Cracking the Code" web site forum.

Wrong. Completely wrong. The law DOES apply the U.S. federal income tax to an individual's non-federally-connected earnings." Hendrickson is completely wrong. Famspear (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

One of Hendrickson's followers, Robert Herriman, tried the "Classification Act" nonsense in a tax case in federal court. In that case, the Court stated:

The crux of Herriman's claim against the Government is that he seeks a refund of federal income taxes withheld from his wages because the Government does not possess the authority to collect taxes from the plaintiff, a private sector employee.

The Court went on to say:

Specifically, Herriman argues that (1) he was not an "employee" as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c); (2) the hospitals and staffing services where he was employed were not his "employer" as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d); (3) he did not perform any "service" as defined in the Classification Act of 1923; (4) he did not receive any "compensation" as defined in the Classification Act of 1923; and (5) he did not participate in a "trade or business" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §§ 7701(a)(26).... [footnote 2 of the Court's opinion; see citation below].

Can you guess what the Court ruled? Yes, Herriman's arguments were rejected, and the Court ruled that Herriman had brought a "patently frivolous lawsuit." See Robert Herriman v. United States, case no. 2:08-cv-807-FtM-29DNF, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Div. (Dec. 3, 2009), at [13]. Famspear (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems for Hendrickson is that he cobbled together the theory that forms the basis of his scam without having legal training or experience. He just wasn't aware of the many ways that the U.S. federal income tax applies.

He was unaware that the U.S. federal income tax applies to illegal income (which is not income received in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege).

He didn't think about the federal estate tax and the federal gift tax -- both of which are also classified as an excise (in the constitutional category of "imposts, duties and excises," otherwise known as "indirect taxes") and both of which apply regardless of whether the taxpayer is exercising a "federal privilege."

He wasn't aware that a person in, say, China, who has never been a U.S. citizen, who has never even been a U.S. resident, who has never even visited the United States, who has no relatives in the United States, etc., is still a "taxpayer" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code (a person "subject to" a U.S. federal tax) and that such a Chinese citizen can indeed be taxed (under the U.S. federal income tax) on private sector income that is not connected to the exercise of a federal privilege. You also were unaware of this (until you read this just now). I won't rub it in by providing the citations (unless you ask me to do so). Famspear (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you indicated that you couldn't find the Ragan case in the U.S. Tax Court, here's an excerpt from the Court decision:

This is a collection review action involving a proposed levy to collect petitioner's [Ragan] outstanding liability for a frivolous return penalty under section 6702 for 2005. Respondent [Commissioner of Internal Revenue] assessed such penalty after petitioner submitted a Form 1040EZ for 2005 on which he reported "-0-" wages on line 1, yet claimed a refund of $12,249.80 for "Federal income tax withheld" Although petitioner cryptically listed his occupation on his Form 1040EZ as "American citizen", he has admitted that he was employed in 2005 by L-3 Communications Titan Corporation as a network engineer and received $76,905 in earnings; petitioner has also admitted that he received a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from his employer for 2005. Petitioner's position is that a $12,249.80 refund is required-"[b]ecause I discovered that the law did not make me liable for income or payroll taxes". In that regard, petitioner alleges that his position as a network engineer is "an occupation of common right not taxable under the excise laws of the United States" and that his earnings of $76,905 do not constitute taxable wages because such earnings constitute "earnings for private-sector, non-federally-privileged work that I did for L-3 Communications during the year 2005."

Petitioner's allegations are frivolous and groundless. Simply put, wages constitute a species of gross income. See sec. 61(a)(1); United States v. Romero, 640 F .2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981) ("Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable."); see also secs. 6012(a)(1), 7701(a)(1) and (14). In sum, petitioner's Form 1040EZ was frivolous and therefore deserving of a penalty under section 6702.

--from Order and Decision, Feb. 19, 2009, Tunis Russell Ragan v. Commissioner, case no. 11966-08L, U.S. Tax Court (footnotes not reproduced) (bolding added).

Notice that Rusty did not use the word "wages" to describe what he received. He was careful to say "earnings." He even specifically asserted that his private sector, non-federally privileged earnings were NOT "wages" -- which is exactly in conformity with what Hendrickson preaches as part of the Cracking the Code scam. He did everything "right" by Hendrickson's book. Yet, the Court ruled that Rusty's allegations were frivolous and groundless, and ruled that the section 6702 penalty (for a frivolous position on a tax return) was appropriate.

And, just as importantly, there is nothing magical about the term "wages." It doesn't have the special super secret Jethro Bodine double-naught spy definition that Hendrickson claims it has. If you received compensation for services you perform, that compensation is part of gross income under section 61 (except to the extent otherwise excluded by statute). There is no exclusion for "private-sector non-federally privileged" earnings.

Rusty Ragan talked about his experiences in various posts at losthorizons dot com in the period from about June 18 through 21, 2009. I believe the posts from that period may be gone from that web site by now (although I have preserved PDF versions of at least some of them. Famspear (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: In Rusty Ragan's case, in addition to affirming the section 6702 penalty for filing a frivolous return, the Court imposed a $5,000 penalty against Rusty for frivolous litigation. Fortunately for Rusty, at that time the section 6702 penalty was only $500. Congress later amended the law to make it a $5,000 penalty. Famspear (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

PPS: Regarding the "Classification Act" nonsense that you fell for: One urban myth that has been passed around the internet for years is the phony story that the Act "created several custom terms and definitions to be used throughout the government from that point on, including in subsequent Revenue Acts as well as the Internal Revenue Code...." Christopher M. Hansen, who has a nonsense web site called "famguardian," promotes this foolishness. There is also a fairly brief dossier on Hansen, at [14].

No, the Classification Act of 1923 did NOT create several custom terms and definitions to be used throughout the government. And, no, the Act did NOT provide definitions to be used in subsequent Revenue Acts. The Classification Act of 1923 does not provide definitions for use in the current Internal Revenue Code. You can read the actual text of the Classification Act of 1923, if you know where to find it. Nothing in the Act applies the definitions of terms in the Act to the federal tax laws.

Again, you have to understand that I've been studying tax protester cases for over 15 years (and I've been studying federal tax law even longer -- since the 1970s). Famspear (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cornell Benjamin

Hello Dscotese,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cornell Benjamin for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. FindMeLost (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dscotese. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Brushaber

Regarding your edit to Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.: No, the courts are correct, and you are wrong. The lower courts have interpreted the Brushaber decision correctly.

And, just as importantly, it is not YOUR place as a Wikipedia editor to decide whether a given court decision "misinterprets" a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Instead, look for reliable, previously published third party sources, and report on what THEY say. Not tax protester literature, but reliable, previously published third party sources. Famspear (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dscotese. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dscotese. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dscotese. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)