quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
[QUOTE]There's the way things ought to be, and then there's the way things are.

Once again, ASG and Sigmonkey for the win.

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
Whoooooooooooooo boy.

... [ snip ] ...

Do you realize that nothing that you wrote makes a damn bit of sense or provides any logical support for your arguments? Seriously, put down the bottle and stop posting. You've done nothing but post gibberish and try to pass it off as some sort of arcane knowledge. If you want to pursue this nonsense, good luck to you, but stop trying to entice anyone else into joining you on this fool's errand.

Aw come on, that is a bit harsh. I'm glad that he posted what he did. That was the part I was looking for, but too lazy to wade through everything to find.
I understand where he is coming from and with the addition of only one word, I can make it make sense.

quote:

"26 USC 7701: Definitions
Text contains those laws in effect on February 18, 2020
From Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F-Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79-DEFINITIONS
Definitions:

§7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-

(26)Trade or business

The term “trade or business” includes ^ ONLY the performance of the functions of a public office.”

And the definition of the legal term “includes" used within title 26:

"(c)Includes and including

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

26 USC 7701

Here is a slightly different wording capturing the same concept from Title 27 (Intoxicating Liquors):

“The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class;”

27 CFR 26.11
27 CFR 72.11

Think a bit. If the term “trade or business” means every common business in the USA (e.g. plumbers, electricians, building contractors, consultants, doctors, etc.), why not just be very clear and state: “The terms “includes and “including” when used in this title are not limiting.”? In law and regulations, every word is suppose to have a purpose, at least that is what I was taught by Uncle Sugar.

My read of the above is that the intent is that income is what is commonly understood as income and the the line "trade or business includes the performance of a public office" is to make it clear that income from the government is not exempted from taxes, not to say that it is only income from the government that is taxable. I suspect that this is the IRS's understanding too. I like his understanding (and my missing tax refund) a whole lot better, but I'm not convinced that the IRS or the courts would agree. Oh well...

ETA: The one added red word makes it say what leavemebe thinks (and I like), and the bolded bit highlights why without that word, he is stretching way too far to find that meaning.

I'm sorry, slosig, but I don't make much sense of your post, either.

That definitions section plays a much greater role in the tax code than working only to clarify whether compensation paid for holding a public office is income or not, and if your inclusion of the word "only" were to be adopted, it would render the latter subsection (c) clarifying the use of the words "includes" and "including" as meaningless, and almost certainly have other ramifications within the IRC because I'm absolutely certain that "trade or business" is not used strictly for references to the performance of the functions of public office.

More to the point, in the greater scheme of the OP's ramblings, it doesn't mean anything. There's no relationship between this definition and anything else he's posted, and it simply doesn't provide any basis, support, or context for anything else that he's said.

All he did in this last post is said to look at a definition (without telling us why we should care), then contrast it with a different definition from a totally different area of the law (references to the Code of Federal Regulations) - as if he's seized on an inconsistency that somehow is meaningful. Really, calling the first term discussed a "definition" is misleading - looking at that section of the IRC, it's not a glossary of terms, but clarifications on the use of certain terms.

Hell, the import of the "definitions" is the same, just using different syntax.

And it's hardly an inconsistency when you consider just how many statutes and regulations have their own definitions and contexts that must be considered when reading and interpreting the law.

So, what's the point? To complain about the way definitions in the IRC are phrased? All the OP has been posting is nothing but noise and to shill for a book and view on taxation that landed the author in jail for all his brilliance.

I take much issue with what the OP is doing because it's dishonest and intentionally misleading. Like so many of these sovereign-whatevers, they toss out pseudo-legalese mumbo jumbo, cite to authority without context (which is almost always irrelevant authority), and make ultimately unsupportable, baseless conclusions, hoping that someone else comes along and is sufficiently blinded by the bullshit to buy into the stunt. That's all this is. Maybe this dude drank the kool-aid and is irredeemable, but I sincerely hope the rest of the membership can see this junk for what it is.

Let's just go to a relevant Revenue Ruling, which contains numerous Supreme Court citations covering various arguments raised in this thread.

Part I

Section 61.—Gross Income Defined

26 CFR § 1.61-2: Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items (Also: )
Rev. Rul. 2007-19

PURPOSE

The Internal Revenue Service (Service) is aware that some taxpayers are attempting to reduce or eliminate their federal income tax liability by claiming that compensation received in exchange for personal services is not taxable income. These taxpayers often attempt to avoid their federal income tax liability by failing to file federal income tax returns or by failing to report all income from wages or other compensation on their federal income tax return. They often furnish Forms W-4, Employee Withholding Allowance Certificates, on which they claim excessive withholding allowances or claim complete exemption from withholding. In addition, they often claim deductions from gross income for personal, living and family expenditures in order to reduce the tax liability related to wages or other compensation.

The Service is aware that some promoters and return preparers are advising or recommending that taxpayers take these or other meritless positions. This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters and return preparers that wages and other compensation received in exchange for personal services are taxable income subject to federal income tax. Any argument that such compensation is not taxable income has no merit and is frivolous. The Service is committed to identifying taxpayers who attempt to avoid their federal tax obligations by taking frivolous positions. The Service will take vigorous enforcement action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions. Frivolous returns and other similar documents submitted to the Service are processed through the Service’s Frivolous Return Program. As part of this program, the Service determines whether taxpayers who have taken frivolous positions have filed all required tax returns; computes the correct amount of tax and interest due; and determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply. The Service also determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply to return preparers, promoters and others who assist taxpayers in taking frivolous positions and recommends whether an injunction should be sought to halt these activities. Other information about frivolous tax positions is available on the Service website at www.irs.gov.

ISSUE

Whether Taxpayer A may avoid federal income tax liability by maintaining that the Internal Revenue Code does not tax wages or other compensation received in exchange for personal services.

FACTS

Taxpayer A receives wages in exchange for personal services. Taxpayer A then does one or more of the following: (1) furnishes a Form W-4 to the employer on which Taxpayer A claims excessive withholding allowances or claims complete exemption from withholding; (2) fails to file a federal income tax return; (3) fails to report the wages on the federal income tax return; (4) claims a refund for any withheld income tax; or (5) claims deductions for personal, living and family expenditures to offset the wages reported on the federal income tax return. Taxpayer A claims that compensation received for personal services is not subject to federal income tax.

Arguments that wages are not subject to federal income tax take many forms including, but not limited to, the following:

1. A tax on wages is a direct tax subject to the provision in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that requires that direct taxes be apportioned among the states by population.

2. Money received in exchange for personal labor constitutes an equal, nontaxable exchange of property.

3. Taxable income from wages or other compensation for personal services can only be determined after deduction of the cost of providing the labor.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

1. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states that “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . . .” This statement has been used to support the argument that there is a constitutional impediment to the imposition of a direct tax on an individual’s wages. The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, provides that “[t]he Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The Sixteenth Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court and upheld. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Thus, the imposition of income tax on wages, without apportionment among the states, is authorized. See, e.g., Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984).

Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income as income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” I.R.C. § 61(a)(1). Courts consistently have upheld the determination that wages fall within section 61(a)(1)’s definition of compensation and, accordingly, constitute taxable income. See, e.g., Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002); United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942 (3d Cir. 1990); Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986); Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1985); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1984); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983).

In United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d. at 943, the Third Circuit noted that “[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.” All income received by a taxpayer is income under section 61 unless it is specifically exempted or excluded. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) (“Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.”).

2. Some taxpayers claim that the payment of wages or other compensation in exchange for personal labor is a nontaxable exchange of property. These taxpayers sometimes rely on sections 83 or 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code to support this argument. Section 83 provides for the determination of the amount to be included in gross income and the timing of the inclusion when property is transferred to an employee or independent contractor in connection with the performance of services. Section 1001 provides for the determination of the amount and timing of the recognition of gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property.

Courts have universally rejected the argument that labor is property that can be exchanged for wages or other compensation in a nontaxable transaction. See Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d at 905; Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d at 265. Courts recognize a distinction between selling labor and selling or exchanging property. See Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, 733-34 (1978), aff’d, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980). Further, the courts have concluded that a taxpayer has no tax basis in one’s labor and, therefore, the full amount of the wages or other compensation received represents gain which may be taxed as income. See, e.g., Casper, 805 F.2d at 905; Abrams, 82 T.C. at 407; Reading, 70 T.C. at 733-34.

3. A related argument is that income from the sale of labor cannot be determined until the taxpayer’s investment in that labor has been recovered. This argument has been repeatedly rejected. See Rowlee, 80 T.C. at 1120; Reading, 70 T.C. at 733-34. In Reading, the Tax Court examined the contention that gain must be realized for there to be income, analyzing the distinction recognized under federal tax law between producing a physical product and providing services. The court flatly rejected the idea that living expenses constitute the cost of “goods” sold for providing labor or services. Reading, 70 T.C. at 733-34. Thus, the court concluded that the gain from the sale of labor is the entire amount received and upheld the disallowance of deductions for personal living expenses.

Courts have uniformly rejected arguments that wages and other compensation for personal services are not taxable income. Accordingly, raising these arguments justifies the imposition of sanctions. See Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d at 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d at 906; Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d at 20.

HOLDING

1. Wages fall within the definition of income set forth in section 61(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Taxpayer A’s wages and other compensation for services are income subject to federal income tax and must be reported on Taxpayer A’s federal income tax return.

2. The payment of wages and other compensation for personal services is not an equal exchange of property. The full amount of wages received by Taxpayer A is subject to federal income tax and must be reported on Taxpayer A’s federal income tax return.

3. Wages and other compensation received by Taxpayer A in exchange for personal services are subject to federal income tax without reduction of Taxpayer A’s personal living expenses.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

The Service will challenge the claims of individuals who improperly attempt to avoid or evade their federal tax liability. In addition to liability for the tax due plus statutory interest, taxpayers who fail to file valid returns or pay tax based on arguments that wages and other compensation for personal services are exempt from federal income tax face substantial civil and criminal penalties. Potentially applicable civil penalties include: (1) the section 6662 accuracy-related penalties, which are generally equal to 20 percent of the amount of tax the taxpayer should have paid; (2) the section 6663 penalty for civil fraud, which is equal to 75 percent of the amount of tax the taxpayer should have paid; (3) the section 6702(a) penalty of $5,000 for a “frivolous tax return”; (4) the section 6702(b) penalty of $5,000 for submitting a “specified frivolous submission”; (5) the section 6651 additions to tax for failure to file a return, failure to pay the tax owed, and fraudulent failure to file a return; (6) the section 6673 penalty of up to $25,000 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in the United States Tax Court; and (7) the section 6682 penalty of $500 for providing false information with respect to withholding.

Taxpayers relying on these frivolous positions also may face criminal prosecution under: (1) section 7201 for attempting to evade or defeat tax, the penalty for which is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years; (2) section 7203 for willful failure to file a return, the penalty for which is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to one year; (3) section 7206 for making false statements on a return, statement, or other document, the penalty for which is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years; or (4) other provisions of federal law.

Persons, including return preparers, who promote these frivolous positions and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on frivolous positions may face civil and criminal penalties and also may be enjoined by a court pursuant to sections 7407 and 7408. Potential penalties include: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each return or claim for refund prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have known that the taxpayer’s position was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return or claim for refund if the return preparer’s actions were willful, intentional or reckless); (2) a penalty under section 6700 for promoting abusive tax shelters; (3) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax; and (4) criminal prosecution under section 7206, for which the penalty is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years, for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return, statement or other document under the internal revenue laws.

DRAFTING INFORMATION

This revenue ruling was authored by the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. For further information regarding this revenue ruling, contact that office at (202) 6227950 (not a toll-free call).

If anyone cares to see how this nonsense pans out, here's the "Lost Horizons" douche getting the business from the U.S. Tax Court. Spoiler alert: it doesn't end well for him. This is what the OP is trying to steer you into.

Tax Court decision

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ShneaSIG,

when I worked construction the summer after high school, there was a 40-something year old guy on the crew with me who said that he hadn't paid full taxes for more than two decades. Said he paid for what he bought, and then paid some tax for the roads HE used or for the time his kids were in school, etc. But aside from that, it's not his responsibility.

I asked about an audit, and he said he was actually in the middle of being audited. they had a big number - some million(s) due in back-taxes, but he said he was paying one or two hundred thousand dollars for a good tax law attorney and he would end up only paying a few hundred thousand to the government, too, instead of the full amount due.

He seemed totally cavalier about it and it blew my mind, but he said they had budgeted legal fees into their finances in case of an audit.

But i'm not terribly surprised. my sister-in-law's husband is also one of those guys who loves the investment schemes and quick-money "tricks" so this all seems right up his alley. Some of the things he and his wife do and believe (like "manifesting" money through positive thoughts) are just as ridiculous to me.

Hell, maybe I'll try to sell them a book! oh wait, that doesn't help me.... hmmm. /s

Harry Potter and the US Tax Code. Just say the magic word, "abrakazizzle" and they have to let you go!

Or some dudes with submachine guns see how many pages of the tax code they can fit in your ass.

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
If anyone cares to see how this nonsense pans out, here's the "Lost Horizons" douche getting the business from the U.S. Tax Court. Spoiler alter: it doesn't end well for him. This is what the OP is trying to steer you into.

Tax Court decision

I've seen these sorts of threads over the years on various forums. I'm always concerned that someone will get sucked into the nonsense and get harmed.

I've been happy to see ShneaSIG's postings. I've been every happier because it doesn't seem anyone if following the OP down this rabbit hole.

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
I'm sorry, slosig, but I don't make much sense of your post, either.

That definitions section plays a much greater role in the tax code than working only to clarify whether compensation paid for holding a public office is income or not, and if your inclusion of the word "only" were to be adopted, it would render the latter subsection (c) clarifying the use of the words "includes" and "including" as meaningless, and almost certainly have other ramifications within the IRC because I'm absolutely certain that "trade or business" is not used strictly for references to the performance of the functions of public office.

More to the point, in the greater scheme of the OP's ramblings, it doesn't mean anything. There's no relationship between this definition and anything else he's posted, and it simply doesn't provide any basis, support, or context for anything else that he's said.

All he did in this last post is said to look at a definition (without telling us why we should care), then contrast it with a different definition from a totally different area of the law (references to the Code of Federal Regulations) - as if he's seized on an inconsistency that somehow is meaningful. Really, calling the first term discussed a "definition" is misleading - looking at that section of the IRC, it's not a glossary of terms, but clarifications on the use of certain terms.

Hell, the import of the "definitions" is the same, just using different syntax.

And it's hardly an inconsistency when you consider just how many statutes and regulations have their own definitions and contexts that must be considered when reading and interpreting the law.

So, what's the point? To complain about the way definitions in the IRC are phrased? All the OP has been posting is nothing but noise and to shill for a book and view on taxation that landed the author in jail for all his brilliance.

I take much issue with what the OP is doing because it's dishonest and intentionally misleading. Like so many of these sovereign-whatevers, they toss out pseudo-legalese mumbo jumbo, cite to authority without context (which is almost always irrelevant authority), and make ultimately unsupportable, baseless conclusions, hoping that someone else comes along and is sufficiently blinded by the bullshit to buy into the stunt. That's all this is. Maybe this dude drank the kool-aid and is irredeemable, but I sincerely hope the rest of the membership can see this junk for what it is.

To restate a little simpler for you, the point is that as written, the stuff he posted is designed to say that income from the government is taxable (as well as all non-enumerated kinds of income), rather than his reading that only income from the government is taxable.

Yes, adding the word “only” (which is not there, but leavemebe seems to be arguing is) would render the “includes / including” clarification moot. Or, looking at it the other way (as I expect the IRS, the courts, and anyone who reads English at all carefully would), the “includes / including” clarification totally moots his point.

My point was that I was glad to finally see the meat of his argument, as now instead of thinking it is horsefeathers, but not knowing, I know it is horsefeathers, and why it is horsefeathers.

One can pretty much be sure that sovereign types are full of something right on the surface, but rarely is their argument laid out in such a way to make it obvious exactly where they are wrong.

Slosig,

You (generously) get a whole lot more out of those diatribes than I do. I don't see much of anything representing a coherent thought or substantive argument from the OP.


And we most certainly agree that it's all horsefeathers!

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
If anyone cares to see how this nonsense pans out, here's the "Lost Horizons" douche getting the business from the U.S. Tax Court. Spoiler alert: it doesn't end well for him. This is what the OP is trying to steer you into.

Tax Court decision

Man, that was a lot of words to say, “This guy is full of horsefeathers.”

I was disappointed to read that they were not liable for penalties under section 6663(a) (but was too lazy to go find and read that section), but was relieved to learn that they got him for 6651(f) and also 6651(a)(2) for ‘05 & ‘06. Too bad it didn’t have a Cliff notes addendum that stated, “In short, on top of the unpaid taxes, the defendant is liable of penalties of roughly X% and interest compounded annually.” In any case, it was clear that he (they) got spanked.

Edited to fix typos. s/a dread/and read/ and s/did/didn’t/. Really must learn to proofread...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: slosig,

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Harry Potter and the US Tax Code. Just say the magic word, "abrakazizzle" and they have to let you go!

Or some dudes with submachine guns see how many pages of the tax code they can fit in your ass.

It's levioosa, not leviosaa.

quote:

Originally posted by ShneaSIG:
Slosig,

You (generously) get a whole lot more out of those diatribes than I do. I don't see much of anything representing a coherent thought or substantive argument from the OP.


And we most certainly agree that it's all horsefeathers!

I don’t think that the (generously) is really here or there. I went into it with the thought that it had to be horse feces, but I wanted to understand on what basis he was making the argument. I didn’t expect to have it laid out so openly and was not going to waste the time to read the whole IRC (or the silly CtC book) to try to find the argument, but when he laid it out so plainly, it was easy to see what he was trying to say and where he went wrong. To be honest, looking at it, I could hear and see Maxwell Smart saying, “Missed it by that much.” But as is often said, a miss is as good as a mile.

Oh my. This is interesting to say the least. I have personally been part of having people making these same ludicrous arguments go to jail for filing liens and various actions against judges.

quote:

Or some dudes with submachine guns see how many pages of the tax code they can fit in your ass.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt are real so the trajectory of this thread is not surprising.

Taxation is a complicated subject going back deep into American history and law.

The first thing that someone interested in the subject needs to do is be willing to consider the possibility that generations of Americans have been misled. It is a difficult thing to consider but reason must rule over emotion.

The fact is that the taxing power of Congress has not changed since 1787. It is plenary but does have to conform to the rules laid down in the U.S. Constitution.

The income tax is an "excise and entitled to be enforced as such” At least that is what the Supreme Court concluded in 1916:

Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

The 16th Amendment does not permit new class of a direct tax. Its intent was to negate a previous erroneous Supreme Court decision. This is corroborated by experts in the law at that time:

Cornell Law Quarterly (1 Cornell L.Q. 299 1915-1916)

The income tax is further clarified in Congressional testimony: “It is and excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges..”

Congressional Record (1943)

The United States of America is a federal republic. Therefore, logically, these "certain activities and privileges" must be federally connected. It applies only to revenue in which the federal government has a direct ownership interest. Federal instrumentalities are but one example.

In effect, the income tax in its current form is the same tax that was enacted in 1862 during the Civil War:

Income Tax Form 1862

For those who deal with 1099’s of various flavors, here is the definition of the legal term “trade or business” applicable to the income tax:

"26 USC 7701: Definitions
Text contains those laws in effect on February 18, 2020
From Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F-Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79-DEFINITIONS
Definitions:
Trade or Business 26 USC 7701

§7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-
(26)Trade or business

The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”

and the definition of the legal term “includes" used within title 26:

"(c)Includes and including

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

26 USC 7701

Here is a slightly different wording capturing the same concept from Title 27 (Intoxicating Liquors):

“The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class;”

27 CFR 26.11
27 CFR 72.11

Think a bit. If the term “trade or business” means every common business in the USA (e.g. plumbers, electricians, building contractors, consultants, doctors, etc.), why not just be very clear and state: “The terms “includes and “including” when used in this title are not limiting.”? In law and regulations, every word has a purpose.

Obviously, people need to confirm all of the above for themselves, understand the rules of statutory construction and learn how things work at the IRS. This thread is not a way to do that. Nor is this the place to learn how to rebut any erroneous information returns you may receive to correct the records in the possession of various taxing authorities.

If you have a legitimate federal or state tax liability, you need to pay it.

For now, I will go about my work, file my tax returns based on my first-hand knowledge and experience over the years, and pay all that I am demonstrably liable for.

God willing, I will check back in a year or so to let you know if the U.S. or Virginia state governments have taken any actions inconsistent with my understanding. Obviously, if the guys in black helicopters or suburbans show up, I may be delayed.

Leavemebe - over and out

_________________________________________________________________

you keep working on your goal and let us know how its going to work out

also send us a forwarding address for care packages

you are not breaking any new ground here, its been litigated before and the feds have won

but I trust that you have a new and novel approach to put the feds on their heels so I wish you luck

Channeling Dirty Harry, "I hate the goddamn system, but until somebody comes up with some changes that make sense, I'll stick with it." I'm afraid you're sorely lacking in the "makes sense" department.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Horseshit. The doofus who cooked up this scheme got sent to jail for it and just got smacked down once again for this horseshit. You keep it up and it'll only be a matter of time before you join him.

You want to insist on slamming your dick in a door, that's your business. Stop trying to convince us to join you.

Stop. Shut your hole and go away.

I can't believe we're on Page 6 of this