Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack?
pharos at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 19:50:11 UTC 2005
On 4/19/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Nor was that judge a judge, he was a tax arbitrator. The Tax Court is
> not a legitimate court, it is an administrative tribunal. The
> arbitrator gets paid bonuses for each conviction by the IRS.
> What is also clear is that the judge is not intent on these citizens
> 'doing their time', but in putting these people out of public
> circulation for as long as possible, like Gulag justice.
So the Tax Court is not a 'legitimate court' and the judges are not
But it can fine you and put you in jail for years?
Sounds pretty 'real' to me. :)
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ Created by Daniel B. Evans
One of the FAQ entries deals with the erroneous 861 claims.
(At the foot of the FAQ he also links to many other sites about the
legal errors of the tax protester movement).
The purpose of this FAQ is to provide concise, authoritative rebuttals
to nonsense about the U.S. tax system that is frequently posted in
misc.taxes, and on web sites scattered throughout the Internet, by a
variety of fanatics, idiots, and dupes, frequently referred to by the
courts as "tax protesters".
This "FAQ" is therefore not a collection of frequently asked
questions, but a collection of frequently made assertions, together
with an explanation of why each assertion is false.
And the assertions addressed in this FAQ are not merely false, but
completely ridiculous, requiring not just ignorance of law and
history, but a suspension of logic and reason.
In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the
views of tax protesters as "frivolous," "ridiculous," "absurd,"
"preposterous," or "gibberish." If you don't read a lot of judicial
opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when
a judge calls an argument "frivolous" or "ridiculous." Perhaps an
analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.
Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss
important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into
their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves
around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the
challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to
explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the
conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose
the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no
evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the
calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that
point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be
polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting
because he is wasting their time.
That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be
civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after
dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by
the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how
many synonyms they can find for "absurd."
More information about the extropy-chat