Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack?
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 19 04:21:06 UTC 2005
--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >While Larken has just been indicted, he was so for not filing a
> >after ten years of not doing so, and only because he took out full
> >ads in national publications challenging the IRS to do so.
> Mmm-hmm. Perhaps a review of
> is in order. In it you'll note that not only is the whole "861 scam"
> bunkum, but also that folks who use it get indicted (texts of
> specific cases and links on the above link) and put in jail.
You are lying here, because noplace on the referenced site does it say
anyone has gone to jail. It does reference several tax court cases that
have ruled that 861 arguments are frivolous, however even IRS's own
regulations say that lower court rulings are not binding tax law, only
Supreme Court rulings are, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the
What is so laughable about the page you link is that quatloose depends
so much on the claims of Erwin Schiff, a person they, elsewhere on
their site, totally demolish as having any valid arguments. They can't
have their cake and eat it. They can't use him as their primary
reference if he is not a credible expert on what tax code actually says
and means in other parts of their site.
> I realize that hatred of the Federal (and, presumably, state and
> local) government is an article of faith for you, but sweet Reason,
> man, don't glom on to every dime-a-dozen con-artist who comes along
> merely because they parrot your ideology.
I don't 'glom on', thanks anyways, as you seem to have glommed onto
quatloose as the be-all-end-all reference site for statists. I'm
patiently waiting to see what Rose has missed. I'm also looking at
Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" to see what happens with him.
All that said, just because a tax court (not a real court, because the
judges in tax court are paid a bonus to convict, and keep half of all
'frivolous' penalties levied, which I'll bet you weren't aware of) says
an argument is 'frivolous' doesn't mean anything other than the
government doesn't want to talk about it.
> Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe any
> taxes yet?
My relationship with the IRS is a private matter as per the Privacy Act
of 1974. I am under no obligation to disclose anything or incriminate
myself. As I have said before, people who openly challenge the IRS
alone get targeted for legal action, no matter what the validity of
their arguments are. Thousands of people every year write letters to
the IRS asking how to determine their taxable income and not one has
been responded to yet, despite it being the IRS' job to do so.
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt (1759-1806)
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
More information about the extropy-chat