User talk:Ned Netterville

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

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

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

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)[edit]

"Neutral Point of View": (official policy) (official policy) (maintenance process, including the rule prohibiting drive-by tagging)


"Verifiability": (official policy)

No Original Research (NOR)[edit]

"No Original Research": (official policy) (primary, secondary and tertiary sources)

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


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[edit]

Information icon 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)

Information icon 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[edit]

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 [1]), 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 [2] 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), [3] 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 (talkcontribs)

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;..."[4]

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, [5] 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 [6] 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 (talkcontribs)

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 "" 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. [7] (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: 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. [8] 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 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." [9] 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." [10] 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. [11] 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 generous pay from the proceeds of taxation. The use of force, violence and coercion to obtain one's daily bread is per se immoral.Ned Netterville (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville

Yes, I am a legitimate Wikipedia editor. No, I am not a "shill" (another term falsely used by tax protesters as an epithet). No, I do not "stand corrected."
You continue to engage in personal attacks -- in violation of Wikipedia rules.
Yes, Schiff was a criminal. Schiff committed many crimes. No, the charges against him were not trumped up.
No doubt you are aware that taxation does not fit the definition of "extortion." You are continuing to express your emotion, Ned, but your wailing and ranting is getting you nowhere. Famspear (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ned: In your personal attack against me, your use of the phrase "persistent defense of the federal tax-collection scam" is revealing. You falsely interpret my statements as being a "defense" of the Federal tax system. Like virtually all tax protesters, you appear to be unable to separate, in your own mind, a description of what the law is from a belief about the morality or righteousness of the law.
You emotionally attack me, Ned, because I am the messenger. You don't want to hear the message. You attack the message and you refuse to accept the message. Again, the message is not that the Federal tax system is just or fair. The message is that it is the law. One of the fundamental mistakes made by Irwin Schiff and others of his ilk was to confuse the message. Because they didn't like the law, they deceived themselves into believing that the law must somehow not really be the law. That is an illogical, emotional response from a stiff-necked people. Famspear (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Famfast, I want to apologize to you for the personal attacks I have made against you on this page. Since last I commented, I heard from my Creator in prayer and meditation that I was wrong in doing so. I'm not happy with myself, for I should know better. I’m sorry, and I hope you will forgive me. As you pointed out, my attacks on you personally were tainted by anger and emotion. I was also reminded in meditation of some wisdom Jesus taught, to wit, “Judge not,” as well as by the way he treated tax collectors: with love and forgiveness, making disciples out of at least two and I suspect many more. I will shortly have some additional comments stating disagreements I have with what you have argued here, but I shall do my best to present them without rancor and with respect for you personally. Again, I’m sorry.Ned Netterville (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville

Thank you. I forgive you, and I'm very interested in what you have to say. Famspear (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Famspear I’m going to answer some of the questions you asked me earlier because I think they will tell you where I am coming from on the subjects of Irwin Schiff and his take as well as my own on what both Schiff and I believe(d) is the unconstitutional manner in which employment taxes—income, SS, etc.—are enforced in order to collect them, and, furthermore, because they are direct taxes being levied without apportionment as required by the Constitution. [12]

I personally have no regard for the Constitution for reasons pointed out by such legal scholars as Lysander Spooner, who posited: “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing…” He goes into much greater detail as to why the Constitution is a dead letter. [13] I also concur in the opinion of Professor John Hasnas, expressed in his essay, the title of which describes his thesis, THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW. ([14]) It appears evident to me, that federal judges who are paid overly generous salaries and given “Cadillac” benefits by the federal government, which are derived from tax revenues, only uphold the Constitution when it is convenient for members of the government hierarchy. However, because the federal judiciary and almost all lawyers rotely proclaim the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and staunchly support the myth that it is universally enforced by the federal judiciary, I will state my objections to income and employment taxes and your arguments here for its authority as though it really is enforced by the courts, rather than ignored when it proves inconvenient to the government’s revenues, which has been the case at least since the Civil War. (“War,” observed Randolph Bourne correctly, “is the health of the state.”)[15]

I should also and always say that I am a disciple of Jesus, though not a Christian, by which I mean I try—however haltingly--to follow his teaching and his example. I have written extensively on the question of Jesus’ regard for taxes and the legitimacy of the violent state. Here are a few samples that will give you an idea of what I believe and where I stand on these issues: [16] And, IMHO, it follows from discipleship that I am a pacifist ( and a voluntaryist, ( which may be redundant since most of the voluntaryists I know are pacifists. This website provides a good representation of what voluntaryism is all about: [17]

My 1971 tax return, the first time I had filed without the assistance of a CPA firm. was audited by the IRS. I was notified that my business income and deductions would be the subject of the audit. That year my only “business” was buying and selling stocks. My only other income was two weeks or a month’s salary from former employment I had quit. When the IRS agent arrived I was subjected to what I now know was a “full field audit,” as opposed to an audit of my business income and expenses only. I have since learned that the deceitful manner it was sprung on me violated IRS rules agents conducting such audits. ( [18] ) The agent spent several hours going over and asking for an explanation of every receipt of money or deposit or investment I had made that year, and every purchase and expenditure for me and my family personally as well as for my “business,” which limited stock trading was hardly worth calling ita business. During that year I had made a trip to Australia with the objective of investing in a farm, business or other opportunity. However, I was much put off by the advanced state of socialism in Australia and returned having only invested about $8000 in a stock recommended to me by a broker in Sidney who I knew personally. I had deducted a large part of my expenses for that trip. The agent said the expenses could not be deducted. I argued, showing him a section of the Code that appeared to me to make the deduction legitimate, while he pointed to a section that could be interpreted to mean the opposite. He departed saying he would take it up with his supervisor. I was subsequently notified that the deduction was disallowed and I was “assessed” additional tax, interest and penalty of about $250, which I felt was completely arbitrary and set at a dollar figure to adequately compensate the government for the time its agent had spent on the audit, but not so high that it would pay for me to contest the IRS’s ruling, which I supposed would require hiring a tax lawyer. The $250 was a negligible sum in relation to my income that year or the previous few years. However, the experience of being subjected to a wanton breach of my privacy, and of having to answer questions about my personal financial affairs from a so-called public servant, whose demeanor throughout was supercilious, was an excruciating, humiliating ordeal. I determined I would never again allow such a flagrant violation of my privacy to be done to me by the government. That arbitrarily “adjusted” tax return is the last return I ever filed, whether federal, state or local. That $250 is the last income tax I ever paid.

The IRS, being a bumbling bureaucracy, didn’t catch up with my refusal to file until late in 1982. An agent stopped by my house when I wasn’t home and left his card asking me to call him. When I did he wanted to know why I hadn’t filed returns of the years 1976, 77, 78. 79, 80, and 81. I told him that I didn’t owe any taxes for those years. (I believe I had by then read Schiff’s book, HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES.) The agent informed me I would nevertheless have to file returns for those years and allowed that I could have two weeks to do so. Within two weeks I sent the agent 1040 forms for those six years on which I printed in big bold letters, “I CANNOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED HEREIN, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY WILL ASSURE ME THAT IN SO DOING ALL OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WILL REMAIN INVIOLATE.” Treasury never provided me with that assurance, and I have never provided Treasury with any of the requested information nor any money in the succeeding 44 years. Thus, it seems indisputable: employment taxes cannot be collect if one’s constitutional rights are respected. Furthermore, it appears from Treasury's failure to take me up on my multiple quid-pro-quo offers that the IRS silently concurs.

So you see, Famspear, I’ve been about this business of resisting taxes for substantially longer that you have been a practicing tax lawyer. I stopped filing or paying those employment taxes even before Irwin Schiff did. Furthermore, my quid-pro-quo offer to Treasury was a manner of responding to Treasury’s income-tax hoax, as Irwin called it, which was original with me rather than something proposed by Irwin Schiff. It was however influenced by Irwin’s suggestion of filing “a Fifth Amendment return,” which I think he suggested in his book, HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES. So if you mean by the word “follower,” which you’ve been using here, a person who has been influenced by Irwin Schiff in resisting the IRS, then count me proudly in. Because the manner in which the IRS goes about enforcing the income tax violates several Articles of the Bill of Rights, I feel my quid-pro-quo is more inclusive and broadly protective of my rights than one limited to asserting the 5thAmendment’s requirement of due process alone.

The IRS did its usual best to frighten me into complying, but to no avail. Its agents did manage to steal a total of about $550 to $600 dollars from two banks where I had checking accounts. Those banks gave the IRS my money without the requisite court order. (See the 5th Amendment.) Fortunately, I was able to recoup most of that amount. I sued both banks in state courts. The attorney for one of the banks wisely and quickly offered to settle for $500, which was more than was taken from that bank, so I accepted. The other bank’s outside counsel, presumably more concerned for running up their fee than for their client’s welfare, successfully defended through trial, appellate, and state supreme courts. Those victories for the tax lawyers were, I must presume, paid for by their client. You can guess better than I what a prestigious law firm would have charged their bank client for their “services.” I would gladly have settled with that bank for $500 as well, and called it a win-win outcome.

I also spent 34 days in jail for “civil contempt” of court for refusing a district judge’s order to comply with an “IRS Collection Summons.” Again, the IRS had no court judgment against me for the money it was demanding. (Does everyone see the Constitution’s safeguards of liberty being flushed down the toilet by that judge’s prosecution, conviction and sentencing of me without even an indictment or trial or pretense of due process?) After 34 rather enjoyable days in three local jails, I agreed to comply as ordered so I could be home for Memorial Day. Thus, I was forced to agree to “produce my financial records and give testimony under oath.” To this day I recall with pleasure the disappointment of the two IRS agents who evidently were sure that I would have a wealth of information to reveal after being brought to heel by a stay in jail. I presume they also thought I was hiding valuable assets or I wouldn’t have gone to jail to avoid revealing the location of my fortune. Fortuitously, I had no records to produce, having stopped keeping financial records back in 1972. However, being forced to testify under oath (affirmation) was almost as excruciating as that long-ago audit ordeal. I was compensated to a degree by the agents’ palpable chagrin at learning nothing that would facilitate their desire to plunder me. (Sidelight: In one of the city jails where I was held there were two other “federal” prisoners in there on drug charges. By my second day with them, they were sufficiently assured I wouldn’t “narc” them that they offered me some of their hidden stash of Jack Daniels Black Label and high-grade marijuana, which the wife of one of them brought into the jail regularly under the intentionally blind eye of the jailers. Ah, the integrity of public servants such as judges and jailers made manifest.:)

That testifying ordeal was my last personal contact with any IRS personnel after a series of earlier encounters as agents tried to persuade me to obey. Subsequently, I continued sending Treasury 1040s with my quid-pro quo for many years. In due course the IRS would notify me by mail that I had been fined $500--without due process--for “filing a frivolous tax return.” Of course I never paid those unlawful fines since I knew they were levied in violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. I often wonder if I set a record for the most frivolous-return fines? I see that the frivolous-return fine has been increased to $5000. [19] Wow! Ten times! There must have been a lot of people like me ignoring the smaller fine. I wonder if my casual dismissal of all those smaller fines provoked the increase? The exponentially larger fine might discourage some tax resisters who are not sufficiently committed, or not aware as I was that such unlawful fines needn’t be paid and can’t be collected—as long as the Constitution means what it says. Of course If my own experience means anything, counting on the government to obey the Constitution is akin to poisonous-snake handling—you may or may not get bit. When government operatives think they can get away with something forbidden by the Constitution, they will do so in a New York minute, explicit constitutional prohibitions to the contrary notwithstanding.

At the outset of my duels with the IRS, I was enraged with the agency and the agents who confronted me. By the grace of God, at about the same time the enforcement measures of the IRS were greatest, I had been studying the Gospels, becoming persuaded Jesus knew what he was talking about. His counsel in his Sermon on the Mount to “love your enemies, pray for your persecutors” sounded apropos to my tax situation, so I began praying for the IRS and its agents. It worked. As a direct result, the IRS is no longer an enemy; none of its agents persecute me. Amazing? Miraculous?

Because of the weasel ways of the IRS, its agents also talked to my wife about her “tax liability.” For several years she had been separately filing and paying taxes obediently. The IRS bogeymen coming after her scared the hell out of her. She was already unhappy with me for my own foray into tax resistance. When IRS agents contacted her and mentioned me, she was outraged at both them and me. While I was being moved from jail to jail during those 34 days, a process server was trying unsuccessfully to find me and serve me divorce papers. I’ve since learned that frightening spouses and other family members is a favorite tactic the IRS uses to prod tax protesters into “compliance” (viz., obedience). Our marriage was heading south at the time anyway, and the fact of our divorce, which I hadn’t wanted, turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Fortunately, our youngest child was close to adulthood at the time and soon headed off to college, so he only missed out on a resident father for a short period.

It should go without question that forced or coerced taxes extort people’s property, so I do my level best not to willingly or voluntarily consume any amenities or benefits derived from said extortion. Do I use public roads? Of course, because I am essentially forced to do so by the government’s insidious monopoly of road building. Do I accept Social Security and Medicare benefits to which I am “legally entitled,” because for twenty years in my ignorant youth, before I wised up to the SS scheme, I paid SS taxes? In fact, no, I don’t. Merely because I was forced to pay into SS does not justify me relying on government to force others to pay for my benefits. By renouncing SS and Medicare benefits for 14 years, I have undoubtedly passed up a fair sum of money that I could certainly use now. Whatever the amount the trade-off has been well worth it. I am not a government dependent as so many in my age group are, and I am not an accessory to what I deem to be an extortion racket. Unlike many of my peers, I have retained my integrity and independence. Government dependency through one “social-welfare” program or another, like all dependencies—alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex or what have you—is a terrible plague inflicting many Americans. I refer to the substance of addiction to government as OPM, which sounds like opium, is equally addicting, and stands for Other People's Money--forcibly extorted And then there is this, which I think is related: I have not needed to see a doctor nor taken a prescription drug in the last 34 years, with the single exception of taking about 10-12 amoxicillian (antibiotic), which a friend gave me, for 5-6 days when I had an infection from a tick bite. During those years I was once thrown form the driver's seat of car while going 50-60 mph, and hit by a Ford Explorer SUC doing 35-45 mph while riding my bicycle. Amazing? Miraculous? Certainly better than having Medicare (or Obama Care) and perhaps as a consequence needing it. My friends who are on Medicare seem to be going to doctors and hospitals a lot.

Famspear, as a result of my relationship to employment taxes, neither paying the taxes nor voluntarily consuming tax-paid benefits, I think it is fair to say I can speak from a more “neutral point of view” on matters of taxation than those who do pay taxes or those who reap benefits from tax revenues or the tax laws. Wouldn’t you agree?

Now a few words about my personal relationship with Irwin Schiff. I met Irwin when he spoke at a Libertarian Party state convention, I think it was in the early or mid-1980s. I subsequently saw him once or maybe twice in the next two decades when he came to my hometown to put on one of his seminars. I had lunch with him on one of these occasions (he picked up the check), and as I remember it was then I suggested to him that he run for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President of the United States as a way to get his message about the income tax across to a larger audience. Then, by pure coincidence, I was in New Hampshire when Irwin came there to campaign in the state's primary for the LP nomination for president. I guess this would have been 1995. I had ridden my bike to NH to visit my daughter and grandson. When I learned Schiff would be speaking at a candidates’ forum in Manchester, NH, I had Wendy drive me over there to hear him. After he spoke, I met with Irwin who was traveling with an older gentleman friend of his from Pittsburgh whose name escapes me. They were travelling together in Schiff’s car and neither one of them liked driving those New Hampshire roads. Since I had time on my hands, I offered to be their chauffer if Irwin would cover my expenses. So for four or five days and nights solid I was with Irwin as he spoke in several NH towns, culminating with a speech at the Balsalms Grand Resort Hotel in Dixville Notch, NH. Irwin had made hotel reservations along the way in two-bedroom suites for him and his buddy, and I slept on the living-room couch. We ate breakfast, lunch and dinner together, occasionally joined by local LP members or fans of Irwin. What I learned about Irwin in those days was that he was a kind-hearted gentleman, generous with his money (great tipper), considerate of others, entertaining and extremely funny, often performing magic tricks for his lunch or dinner guests, for which he invariably paid the bill. He was an inveterate talker who would dominate conversations with the happy acquiescence of his companions because he had a lot of good things to say. Here is a website with three video tributes to Irwin Schiff. See especially the last one featuring an interview with Irwin explaining his thesis regarding the constitutional definition of income: [20] Unfortunately the interviewer wasn't wise enough to shut up and let Schiff tell his story without interruption, instead injecting many rather inane observations. There are also a wealth of Irwin Schiff videos on YouTube, many of which portray a very different person than the one presented in the Wiki article, which obviously has been unfairly edited by defenders of the income tax.

I personally never purchased any of Irwin Schiff’s tapes or other material except three of his books. I also received one or two others as gifts. When Schiff was under heavy attack from the government in the early years of the new century, I sent him unsolicited a check for $1000—no strings attached—and offered to come to Vegas to assist in his legal battles. I am an accomplished “writ writer,” and I thought I might be able to help him. I was a bit perturbed because I never received a thanks or even acknowledgement from Irwin, which was out of character, but today I understand that what the government was doing to him at the time would make even a saint neglectful of basic courtesies.

With that as background on my tax situation, and on my personal relationship with Irwin Schiff, here are the problems I have with some of the things you have argued on this Irwin Schiff Wikipedia “talk page:”

Famspear, you wrote: “In fact, as far as it is known, no follower of Irwin Schiff has ever been acquitted of federal tax crimes…he has the dubious distinction of having had the highest number of followers convicted.” This is a sophisticated or sophist’s argument in the sense defined at “A sophist is someone who makes good points about an issue — until you realize those points aren't entirely true, like a political candidate who twists an opponent's words or gives misleading facts during a speech.”( [21] )

Famspear, your argument is misleading because evidently only fourteen of Schiff’s “followers” were ever charged and convicted of tax crimes ([22] ), whereas Schiff likely had tens of thousands of “followers” who, like me, stopped paying the federal income tax but were never charged nor convicted of any crimes whatsoever. After all, combined sales of his books on the federal government’s income tax hoax and Social Security tax swindle, as he called them, totaled several hundreds of thousands. Also, there was a period of time when he was a repeat guest on popular national television and radio talk shows. Furthermore, Schiff was charged by the government with earning millions of dollars from the sales of his books and other anti-tax materials, so the number “followers” purchasing his advice had to be substantial. No other one of many “illegal-tax protester,” as the IRS liked to call us before Congress told them to stop, has had anything close to the number of “followers” as Irwin Schiff. Thus, fourteen is a miniscule number of convictions out of his many, many “followers.”

When Schiff published his last book, THE FEDERAL MAFIA, HOW IT (viz., the IRS) ILLEGALLY IMPOSES AND UNLAWFULLY COLLECTS INCOME TAXES, and with tens of thousands of copies sold in addition to his other books and material, government tax enforcers evidently panicked and felt they had to crush Irwin Schiff to silence him, or be crushed by a major tax revolt already brewing. So the government, by means of a court injunction, prohibited Schiff or his publisher from selling his nonfiction book, an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and a free press ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."). This is something the government has never done to any other author before or since. It is a precedent more dangerous to American freedom than was Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Then a federal judge, also presiding in violation of his ethical Code of Conduct, sentenced Irwin, who was 78 years old, to fourteen years in prison, which, as the judge must have known, proved to be a death sentence. Irwin died in prison of cancer shackled to a hospital bed. In a stirring tribute to this courageous American hero, former Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul referred to Irwin as “a real gentleman,” “absolutely sincere and probably right on all his arguments about the Constitution and the tax code.” Quoting H.L. Menken, Paul suggested Schiff fit Menken’s description of, “The most dangerous man to any government…the man who is able to think things out without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.” ([23])

Famspear, you said of Schiff, in regards to those few of his “followers” who were jailed by the federal government: “Helping to ruin other people’s lives is also something he should not have been proud of.” With all due respect, that is utter drivel? Schiff didn’t “help” send anyone to jail, rather he counseled people on how to avoid being imprisoned. The federal government alone imprisoned those people. To suggest that Schiff’s “followers”--your choice of words, not mine--followed Irwin like a bunch of lemmings is ludicrous. As someone who has had the temerity to go up against the IRS with its army of lawyers and armed agents, I can assure you that no one becomes an “illegal-tax protester” and Schiff “follower” without due consideration of the possibly adverse consequences. The threat of jail is one of the government’s well-advertised, primary weapons to frighten American taxpayers into servile obedience, forcing them to “voluntarily comply” with an undecipherable tax code exactly as they are told, and to "just shut up and pay up" without thinking or protesting. Evidently, more than 100 million Americans are persuaded by the government’s intimidation, but that does not mean all, nor even a small minority of taxpayers would voluntarily comply if they weren’t threatened with jail and impoverishment. I hope readers of this page will watch the following video for a most revealing discussion with the former Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, on the idiotic oxymoron, “voluntary compliance.” [24]

Famspear, I hope you’ll watch that video too. Harry Reid argues that being forced to pay taxes is voluntary. Harry “proves” being forced is acting voluntarily by repeatedly and forcefully declaring that being forced to do something is voluntary. Since he can’t logically dispute the factual, forcible nature of the income tax system, Harry practically shouts, “The fact of the matter is that our system IS A VOLUNTARY SYSTEM!” And there you have Harry's "proof" and Harry's "logic." In my 45-years experience dealing with beneficiaries defending the federal-income-tax hoax, I find Harry’s logic is precisely the logic behind all of the tax consumers’ justifications for using force to obtain their daily bread. Here are a two other video calling the legality and morality our income-tax system into question by reputable people including “reformed” IRS agents and supervisors. ([25]) ([26])

Famspear, you argued here, “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.” (Let me reword that last sentence to reflect reality: A judge cannot possibly be impartial in a tax case because his income is derived from taxes and his employer is one of the parties in every tax case. My argument isn’t frivolous. Judges treat their own ethical Code of Conduct as frivolous because it clearly mandates them to disqualify themselves from presiding in tax-protester cases.

Famspear, with all due respect, your arguments here sound exactly like Harry Reid’s in that video. Unfortunately, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges disproves your contention, and I have quoted from it word for word without adding any “interpretation,” for the Code speaks for itself: "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;…” Let the readers of Wikipedia judge for themselves whether or not the Code’s mandate applies to cases where the judge is paid by one of the parties (the United States) using revenues from the very same taxes the other party is protesting, and whether or not a judge in such cases has “a financial interest in the subject matter…(and is),,,a party to the proceeding.” [27] Compromised by who pays them and how much with proceeds from taxes, and by the fact that their employer is always on of the parties, federal judges and justices are unfit to preside in tax cases.

By the way, Famspear, can you cite a case wherein, as you say, “This is garbage that tax protesters have already tried in court.” I’d like to know who those tax protesters you refer to are, because I was sure the argument originated with me about the time I revealed it on Quatloos [28] Please cite pertinent cases. There is a chance I mentioned it elsewhere or to a few friends, but I did not mention it to any of my fellow illegal-tax protesters. I just went back and read that Quatloos thread for the third time, and it is self-evident that no one over at Quatloos was able to dispute my analysis, which I, like Socrates, put in the form of a question. Your reference to my position on this as “blatant nonsense” certainly appears to be hyperbole, for the best you or the boys and girls at Quatoos could come up to dispute my position was, “No! Federal judges are impartial.” Well, here are some federal judges who were not so impartial who also treated their ethical Code as a frivolous argument. [29]

Famspear, you said, “Nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct [sic] supports the preposterous position you take.” Hmm, Famspear, as Ron Reagan famously said, “There you go again.” And again I must point out that the only position I’ve taken is taken verbatim from the Code of Conduct for US Judge. In other words, I have let the Code speak for itself—and for me.

Famspear, you said of yourself, “My opinions are unbiased and honest.” With all due respect, how can your opinions possibly be unbiased on whether or not federal income and employment taxes are constitutional when you admit you “have earned a fortune over the years in my tax practice?”

Famspear, you said, “I use the term “fraudster” to describe Irwin Schiff. I can back that up with solid support.”

Famspear, I doubt you can back up that ugly charge. Exclusive of federal tax-evasion cases in which I have shown here that the judges were obviously biased and should have been disqualified for having a vested financial interest in the outcome of the cases before them, Schiff was never convicted of fraud in any state or federal court. You present no evidence Schiff ever committed fraud. Nor have you any solid support for describing him elsewhere as “a con.” And please don’t put forth any material from the government’s case banning him from selling his book THE FEDERAL MAFIA, which was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment by a contemptible judge. The judge who issued that injunction was sitting in violation of his ethical Code and conspiring with the party seeking the injunction, the United States (the same party who was paying the judge) to silence Irwin Schiff because his books, tapes and speeches were attracting so many followers and thereby threatening to provoke a major tax revolt. Your use of pejorative epithets when referring to Irwin Schiff is your way of expressing frustration and fear of the consequences of Sciff being vindicated. That won’t work with me nor should it find expression in a Wiki article.

Famspear, you wrote above, “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, you also refer to Schiff’s impeccably correct understanding of the Internal Revenue Code with such epithets as “hilariously idiotic,” “utter baloney,” and “nonsensical,” but you do not attempt to rationally dispute Schiff’s contention. You justify calling Schiff’s arguments such names by citing the fact that “many times the courts ruled (Schiff) to be wrong.” Those courts you refer to were all presided over by compromised judges, and they all denied him the opportunity to elaborate his position to the juries or show them the Supreme Court cases or a copy of the Internal Revenue Code he relied on for his position. Furthermore, not only do you take a few snippets of Schiff’s long and detailed explanation of what “income” is in the IR Code pursuant to Supreme Court rulings, you offer no evidence to show that Schiff was wrong in his understanding of what constitutes “income” pursuant to rulings of the Supreme Court. Can you substantiate wherein Schiff was wrong by showing me what the Supreme Court has said constitutes income for purposes of the IR Code, in contradistinction to Schiff’s understanding? You would be doing me a favor if you could also show me what statute or provision of the IR Code makes a person liable to pay a tax on one’s “income,” whatever that means.

Famspear. If you were fair minded and wanted to understand Schiff’s position, you would read Schiff’s book, the Great Income Tax Hoax, all 565 pages including many documents and evidence in support of his charges against the government, and criticize that. For you to cherry pick a few lines out of context from Schiff’s elaborate understanding and thorough explanation of one of the most complex matters of law, and cite those few words as representing his magisterial exposé of what the government has done to its taxpayer-victims, and why he accurately calls it a hoax is, in a word, absurd.

Famspear, you wrote, “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.”

Fam, This is one of the many transparently sophist arguments the tax establishment has used against Schiff and other tax protesters. Shiiff obviously wasn’t moving assets to evade taxes because he didn’t owe any taxes. He was trying to preserve his property from thieves. Schiff didn’t believe he owed a dime in taxes, but he knew from prior experience that this wouldn’t deter the IRS from taking his property without due process of law. After all, the IRS had previously taken about a quarter of a million dollars of Schiff’s royalties as author of HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES from his publisher, Simon & Shuster, without any pretense of affording him due process before grabbing his money. With that experience in mind, it would be insane for Schiff—or anyone else--not to try to hide his wealth from a roving band of thieves. Rest assured that when my own boat comes in, I’ll tell the captain to steer clear of these shores where pirates abound and are in charge, and dock it at my residential pier in the Turk and Caicos Islands.

Famspear, that is all for now. Thank you for engaging. I’m grateful to you for drawing my attention to some of the desideratum of being a Wiki editor, a task to which I had previously given little or no thought, even though I had blunderingly made a few edits. Now that I am a bit enlightened, thanks to you, I may get more involved. I notice you’ve been quite active as an editor particularly on taxes and tax-protester articles, injecting the slant of one who has made a fortune from the tax laws. It is evident that the “other side” of these subjects has been poorly represented if at all on Wiki by the tax-protester side. If I live long enough and find the time, maybe I can correct that by bringing some balance to some of those articles from my obviously more neutral and enlightened point of view.

P.S. You are welcome to tell your friends at the IRS that I don’t have medical insurance either, as required by the Affordable Care Act legislation. I’d welcome an opportunity to show that enforcement of ACA is also unconstitutional, and should be unenforceable if the Constitution means anything, but then again, it really doesn't to the beneficiaries of federal taxes.

P.S.S. Since posting this earlier today, proofed it and made a few changes, mostly correcting typos but a few changes of substance.Ned Netterville (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Ned Netterville (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Ned Netterville

Dear Ned: Thanks. In a few days, I hope to provide some additional comments of my own. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fam, Take your time. I'm resting on my oars anyhoo.Ned Netterville (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten about you. I've been meaning to respond to your last comments.
As I have explained to you, under the rule you are citing, a federal judge does not have a conflict of interest in a federal tax matter merely because that judge is paid a salary from the U.S. Treasury. And, obviously, it is highly improper for you, as a Wikipedia editor, to insert your own "in defense of Schiff" interpretation of the law into the article. Thus, you're wrong on the federal law, and you're wrong under Wikipedia's rules. Famspear (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Ned, your "miniscule" argument is also prohibited Original Research (and incorrect, at that). You as a Wikipedia editor are not supposed to be inserting your own personal feelings and commentary into articles.
And, your edits to the article form a false narrative. The number of persons convicted for following Schiff is huge -- not "miniscule." Only about two to three thousand people are year are indicted for Federal tax crimes. So, a tax protester who has five or ten or fifteen followers who have been convicted for following him is a huge failure in terms of the legal system. Your edit gives the false impression that somehow the opposite is the case.
The texts of both of your most recent edits are classic examples of why these rules exist in Wikipedia:
Your most recent edits violate all three of those rules.
Stay tuned.... Famspear (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ned, good to "see" you back. Sorry, I still have not yet responded to your last lengthy post from last autumn. Famspear (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fam, That's okay, re the delay. I assume you get pretty busy before, during and after the taxpayer mulcting season. Hope you made lots of money off those poor folks who support the violent state with their "voluntary" (as Harry Reid insists) contributions.Ned Netterville (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)User: Ned NettervilleNed Netterville (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm just thankful to be a member in good standing of the cabal of Illuminati international banksters who prey on hard-working Americans. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.... Famspear (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

And I'm thankful to be an Illegal-Tax Protester who hasn't been mulct by your cabal since I realized the IRS is a paper tiger. All you gotta do is rope a dope 'em. Ha, ha! Don't let your meatloaf. Remember, you can't bounce a meatball. Keep you eye on the lies--there everywhere. Heard any good lawyer jokes lately? [30]Ned Netterville (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Ned Netterville

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^