User talk:Famspear/Archive10

America: From Freedom to Fascism
Dear Famspear, thanks for your comments. You appear to be under the false assumption that I am a tax protester, as is evident by your comment “I would note that you are going to be very hard pressed to demonstrate substantial errors in Professor Siegel's analysis”. In the same way that tax protesters unfairly assume those who disagree with them must have ulterior motives, you have done much the same thing. My objection to the link and the comments on the link do not relate to the issue of tax, rather the issue of film analysis. The comments suggest the link will forward you to a professors comment on the tax issues in the film. In actuality the link will forward you to a dubious film analysis filled with questionable value judgements. Whilst Siegel may have some expertise with regard to the tax issue, he clearly has no understanding of film analysis. In the same way that tax ‘experts’ may be irritated by those who offer ill considered comments on their subject of expertise (including film makers), I, as some who has a BA in Film and has written numerous critical essays on many films, am irritated by equally ill considered comments by those who do not understand the subject of film analysis.

As Siegel peppers his analysis of the tax issue with personal value judgements, I feel a less hysterical link is called for and so offered the IRS site as a more reasonable counter voice. In short, Siegel could and should offer his opinion on the tax issue without resorting to hysterical, value judgement film analysis. Nevertheless, I fully accept I should have made clear my objection from the outset (and worked my way around this slightly cumbersome site a bit better). King regards. Newcwriter 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Newcwriter: Thank you for your comments. I had some additional comments or questions, which are found on the talk (discussion) page for the article, so I'll watch that page in the event you respond to my comments there. Yours, Famspear 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: For my own reference, here is the link to the web page by Professor Jonathan Siegel: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm. Famspear 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Newcwriter: Just to follow up, my statement on 18 April 2007 that you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate substantial errors in Professor Siegel's analysis was based on your own descriptions of your edits, such as here on 16 April 2007, where you said that there "are numerous errors on the linked page, which is low quality and misleading." and here on 17 April 2007, where you said "Link cut, replaced with IRS page! The "a law professor 'comments' on the tax issue..." is dubious. I will try to list all the errors and share them with you."


 * Because Professor Siegel's commentary related to the film's claims about what the law is and because he is a law professor, and because he does not, in my view, appear to be holding himself out as performing "film analysis" in the way that a film student would, it never occurred to me that the "errors" to which you adverted related to anything other than what Law Professor Siegel was talking about - namely, the law.


 * You didn't even mention "film analysis" until your comment here on 18 April 2007 -- and that mention was made in response to my own comment about your being hard pressed to find errors in Siegel's work. I think that until you actually mentioned "film analysis" (and again Siegel is a professor of law, not a professor of film studies) a reasonable person would have assumed -- from reading both his work and your comments about his "errors" -- that you were talking about errors in the law professor's comments about the law. Yours, Famspear 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Famspear. Good work in continuing to deal with Burk Hale. Now that tax season is winding down, I wonder if you would reconsider adminship? You're free to ignore this request, of course. Anyway, I hope you get nice break from work and more time to edit, whether an admin or not. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear editor Jersyko: Thanks on adminship, and I'm still thinking about it. I will let you know one way or the other.


 * Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess, depending on one's point of view) I just had a new load of tax problems (real life clients) dumped in my lap. If only they were interesting tax problems! So I am scrambling to reset my priorities for the next few months.


 * As you may know, the 15th of every month (not just April) is actually a Federal tax deadline of one sort or another, as are the last days of each of the months of April, July, October, and January. So it's a never ending saga for me. Don't tell anyone, but my work is heavily oriented toward tax return preparation and dealing with the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities on various issues (not going to court). There's a fair amount of legal research, and writing tax position disclosure statements.


 * I got involved here in Wikipedia in late 2005 when I began browsing and saw Wikipedia editors contending with a tax protester who was obstinately and repeatedly trying to use Wikipedia as a launching pad for blatant, unverifiable POV nonsense about the U.S. income tax laws. As a result I now watch many law related articles, especially the group of articles devoted to tax protester arguments. There are some psychological similarities between tax protesters and certain other (ahem) contributors here in Wikipedia who repeatedly push unverifiable, POV nonsense in defiance of consensus.


 * Wikipedia is definitely an enjoyable, learning experience for me. Yours, Famspear 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Where do you work?
 * 2) Are you paid by the government or anybody else to make edits on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackspenn (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Dear Jackspenn. You can sign your comments on a talk page by using four "tildes", like this: ~.


 * Why are you interested in where I work? And why are you asking whether I'm paid to make edits in Wikipedia?


 * Also, do you know of a way that I could get paid to edit in Wikipedia (I would like to quit my day job and get paid to edit Wikipedia). Yours, Famspear 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too :-) Morphh   (talk) 16:07, 01 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I get paid big bucks by taxpayers to represent them in their dealings with the Internal Revenue Service. See my user page for information about me. Yours, Famspear 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Offer in compromise
Hey, I talked to The Coloradan and told them that this link, which you removed here, would be OK. It doesn't have huge gobs of in-text advertising, and the info does appear to be useful. Veinor (talk to me) 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that, and I put it back in. I guess I acted too quickly, thanks. Famspear 19:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tax protesters and my twenty-five cent psychology lesson
On 5 October 2006 an anonymous editor at IP 216.81.197.249 inserted the following commentary in the article page for Tax protester, which later was moved to the talk page:


 * Note: Whomever wrote this is obviously biased against any attempt to hold the US Government accountable to the Constitution, and/or loves paying taxes to no end!

From a psychological standpoint, the quoted commentary from the anonymous user at IP 216.81.197.249 is interesting. I have no specialized expertise in psychology -- but since this is Wikipedia and I don't need to have expertise in a particular field to write or edit in that field, here goes my 25 cents worth.

To some degree, most if not all of us in our daily lives may from time to time engage in a mental process called Transference, which one psychiatrist has defined as "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood." (Leonard H. Kapelovitz, M.D., To Love and To Work/A Demonstration and Discussion of Psychotherapy, p 66 (1987)). Part of the animus behind the ravings of some tax protesters is the burning, infantile urge to rebel against an Authority Figure (probably in many cases a parent). Much of what is behind the activity of some tax protesters is an attempt to work out an unresolved situation or problem with a parent (an Authority Figure) that developed in infancy or early childhood. The subject tries to work through the problem by inappropriately substituting a present-day person (or an object or concept) for the parent, and dealing with the Substitute as though it were the parent. This means that instead of consciously attacking "Mommie" or "Daddy" directly, the subject subconsciously substitutes a presumably safer and more distant target -- such as the government in general, the central banks, and so on.

A possible psychological aspect of all this is the deep seated infantile feeling among some tax protesters that they have been lied to or misled or neglected or abused or otherwise treated unfairly by a parent or parental figure. The trust that should have been felt in the relationship with the parent was supplanted by fear, mistrust, etc. The resulting unhappy feeling sometimes manifests itself in what I call the "you can't fool me" syndrome -- a conspiratorial view of the world, perhaps bordering in a few cases on a paranoid view. This can be seen in the numerous references in tax protester literature to putatively malevolent authority figures -- judges, lawyers, CPAs, congressmen, bankers, etc. -- massive numbers of people over a period of at least the past 93 years (since the advent of the modern U.S. income tax in 1913) who are supposedly engaged in a vast, selfish conspiracy to "hide the truth" about the Federal income tax.

"You can't fool me" is sometimes the feeling or emotion, or "affect" behind all this. Some tax protesters, like conspiracy theorists in general, work up a magnificent, elaborate, totally improbable Weltanschauung. If the subject can create a fully elaborated explanation that connects the dots he or she feels in his or her mind should be connected, then he or she feels somehow "safer" or protected from the real or imagined predations that might come from the putatively malevolent parent, and cannot be "fooled" by that parent's real or imagined actions.

Now, let's look at the verbiage again:


 * Whomever [sic] wrote this is obviously biased against any attempt to hold the US Government accountable to the Constitution, and/or loves paying taxes to no end!

The tax protester may feel he must deal with an early childhood conflict with his parent, but does so "safely" (or so he feels) by not confronting the parent directly. The protester, through a transference, substitutes the Federal government or the central bank, or the tax law, etc., which becomes the Substitute Authority Figure. The protester subconsciously attempts to weaken the perceived "power" or even omnipotence of the parent by consciously attacking the validity, the legitimacy, of the Substitute Authority Figure. "There is no law that requires me to pay income tax" and so on.

In effect, the protester may be consciously trying to hold the Substitute Authority Figure accountable to the infantile standard (of fairness, etc.) set by the protester in his early, uncomfortable dealings with the parent. The protester consciously attempts to hold the Substitute Authority Figure accountable to the standards the protester subconsciously feels should have been used by his parents with him in early childhood by indirectly and unconsciously denying the legitimacy of the parent's authority and power -- through the device of directly and consciously denying the authority or righteousness or validity or power of the Substitute Authority Figure.

The protester is disturbed, however, when reality infuses the protester's attempt at the use of the transference to resolve the infantile conflict. That is, the tax protester becomes upset when third parties (in this case, other Wikipedia editors) point out massive amounts of authoritative information that contradict the protester's view of the tax law (the Substitute Authority Figure) -- and the protester responds to this reality check very consciously and emotionally. This response is seated ultimately, however, not in the protester's present-day relationship to the tax law (the Substitute Authority Figure) but instead in the protester's past infantile relationship with the parent, which relationship is now being dealt with subconsciously and inappropriately. If the Substitute Authority Figure is shown to have validity and power, then in the subconscious mind of the protester the parent must also have been legitimate and powerful -- and the protester decompensates in a very emotional, angry, or otherwise uncomfortable way.

A further possible aspect of this in the process of editing Wikipedia is that third party editors who present authoritative information that contradicts a tax protester's view may, in the mind of the protester, be closely but subconsciously and inappropriately associated with the parent, and the anger, hurt or mistrust resulting from the infantile relationship with the parent may, through another transference, be expressed by the tax protester toward the third party editor. Essentially, an attempt to provide data that contradicts the tax protester's view may be subconsciously but inappropriately viewed by the protester as an attempt by the third party Wikipedia editor to "take the side of the parent" -- or even be the parent -- in the dispute. One tax protester explicitly (but, in his own mind, subconsciously) apparently made this inappropriate connection on the talk page for the article Tax protester on April 3, 2006, when he said, in response to something I wrote, that "because you say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: 'Because I'm the Mommy, that's why.'"

"[T]he patient misunderstands the present in terms of the past" (Kapelovitz, at p. 66, quoting Fenichel O, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis, p. 29 (1945)). "[ . . . ] [A]ll symptoms and neurotic patterns were originally solutions. Unfortunately, they were childhood solutions that have persisted into adulthood." Kapelovitz, p. 81.

So, Wikipedia editors, bear all this in mind when editing the tax-related articles. On the other hand, hey, I'm not a psychologist, so I could be all wrong! Yours, Famspear 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting theory. Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants suffered from this disorder? -- TexasDawg 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear TexasDawg: No, and that's a good point. The participants of the Boston Tea Party, like today's tax protesters, were strongly opposed to taxes, or to a certain kind of tax. The "Tea Party" folks, however, did not try to delude themselves and others about the nature of what the law actually was at the time. By contrast, the essence of today's tax protest movement is a huge body of delusional, nonsensical, hilariously bizarre and often fraudulent (intentionally false) arguments that have nothing to do with what the law actually is, or with the rules of proper legal analysis. To the tax protesters I would say: When you are opposed to a law, then work to change the law. Don't waste your time kidding yourself and everyone else about what the law actualy is. By contrast, the Boston Tea Party folks probably held no illusions about what the law actually was at the time. Yours, Famspear 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah... gotcha. And I totally agree, fwiw.  I fully oppose taxation and find it no morally or economically different than armed robbery, but I agree that the legal arguments of many American tax protesters are bizarre and nonsensical (besides being pointlessly naive, imho).  -- TexasDawg 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with the U.S. Federal income tax is economic. For starters, it is waaaayyyyyyyy too complex. A while back I posted an example of a former provision of the Internal Revenue Code (this particular provision was thankfully repealed some years back) consisting of one sentence of over 400 words. I have to deal with this kind of stuff day to day. The moms and pops who prepare their own tax returns and think Form 1040 is complicated just have no idea. Believe me, physically filling out the tax forms is the easy part. This complexity means that so many people have to hire people like me to sort it all out. While I do enjoy the challenge and I personally economically benefit from it, the cost to society of having to hire lawyers and CPAs just to deal with Federal income tax is enormous.

Another thing is real estate property taxes on a personal residence. Income taxes, at least, are roughly based on ability to pay. (High income, high tax. Low income, low tax.) And income tax is an event tax. It's based on a realization event. If you have a piece of business real estate that has gone up in value, for example, you aren't taxed on the gain until and unless you sell the real estate at a gain (i.e., you realize the gain). The real estate property tax on a personal residence is a much more destructive tax than is the Federal income tax. A property tax is not an "event tax." It's a "state of title" tax. You own the property on January 1, or whatever, and (guess what) you owe the tax, based on the property value (including the unrealized gain). A tax on property by reason of its ownership as we say in the law. Your personal residence for the most part does not directly generate money in the way that a business real estate property does. Further, your residence (at least in the USA) can go dramatically up in value in a short period of time, resulting in an increase in tax -- even when your financial resources have not increased to cover that tax. The real estate property tax on a personal residence is an anachronism, a throwback to hundreds of years ago in Merrie Olde England, when property values did not change dramatically. Famspear 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The road runner
The following is an excerpt from some of my commentary in March of 2006 in the talk page archives for Tax protester (see ):


 * With respect to the Federal income tax on individuals, the basic tax is imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 1. Under that statute, the tax is imposed on a legal concept called "taxable income," which in turn is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 63. Taxable income basically means "gross income" less the allowable deductions. "Gross income" is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 61. Many tax protesters are well aware of these provisions, but for many of them it does not really matter how much law they read; they simply refuse to accept it. All tax protester arguments, by definition, are feeble. Not only are the arguments incorrect as a matter of law, they are so flaccid that they are legally frivolous. As fellow editor BD2412 has said, tax protester arguments are based on very fundamental misconceptions about how law and the legal system actually work -- not just Federal income tax law, but law in general. As a result, tax protester arguments are easy to refute. Tax protesters are also hampered by the fact that there are so many different tax protester arguments and theories -- and these theories have been rejected over and over by the courts for so many years. Tax protest theories were fatally hampered many years ago -- because of the foolish insistence by many tax protesters that the theories actually be litigated. To litigate a tax protester argument is to lose. [ . . . ] The tax protester is a real life equivalent of the poor "coyote" in the "Road Runner" cartoons that used to be popular on television in the United States. [ . . . ]


 * Post-script: For those who are not familiar with the old "Road Runner" cartoons on U.S. television (see Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner), the coyote character was a character who tried, over and over each week, to capture the road runner (a bird) with one elaborate but ridiculous scheme after another. Each contraption fabricated or acquired by the coyote to capture the road runner failed miserably -- with the virtually inevitable result that the coyote was horribly (but, to the television viewer, hilariously) smashed against some rock or cliff or otherwise crushed, burned, etc. Despite always losing, the coyote never learned his lesson -- always coming back with yet another ridiculous contraption to defeat the road runner -- and always failing in the most miserable and silly way.


 * I totally agree with you that the tax protester legal arguments are stupid and ridiculous. (The attempt itself is as naive and futile as appealing to the mob's employee that the actions of his boss are wrong or inconsistent.  Pretty pointless, even if you were to prove your case.)  Many tax protester arguments on morality and economics are far more logical and consistent than those of tax proponents though.  -- TexasDawg 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to the analogy, I think I should point out that Wile E. Coyote often failed to catch Road Runner because the speedy avian was able to defy the laws of physics, such as by walking on air or by physically entering a painted-on tunnel opening. As ridiculous as most tax protester arguments may be, it doesn't help the government's case when the state counters with something an order of magnitude more obtuse and nonsensical.  As long as the tax kooks accept the cartoon-like world of the state's legal system, they should not be surprised when they are, metaphorically speaking, crushed by a grand piano in the middle of the Sonora Desert.  Just as, in the cartoon, the fundamental premise is that Wile E. never actually eats Road Runner, the state's fundamental premise is that it always gets to take some of your money.  Anyway, my point is that even if the tax protester's arguments weren't naive, crazy, or otherwise flawed, they would still fail, because they are playing a game where rule zero is "the house always wins, and you always lose," and the 26000 pages of written rules are just about keeping score. -- Logfromblammo 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Logfromblammo: Interesting thoughts, but I don't think your analogy works. Here's why.

In the real world, we're talking about a contest between the taxpayer and the government, not the Coyote and the Roadrunner. In the real world, taxpayers win all the time (I represent lots of winners myself.) The trick is that in the real world there are two broad categories of taxpayers for purposes of our discussion: Those who present legally meritorious (legally valid) arguments (let's call them Category 1), and those who do not (Category 2).

Of those who present Category 2 arguments, there are two subcategories: Those who present -- for lack of a better term -- nonfrivolous argument (on either law or facts) (we'll call this category 2A), and those who present frivolous arguments (Category 2B). (For purposes of discussion, I'm ignoring the fact that many people present all kinds of arguments in the same case.)

Tax protester arguments are arguments that fall into Category 2B.

In the real world, neither the government nor the taxpayer is allowed to defy the rules of "physics" -- which by that I mean of course the rules of law. As you study thousands and thousands of actual court decisions (and not just tax law, but all law at both the Federal and state level), you find that the government gets slammed just as quickly as the taxpayer where the taxpayer has the law and facts on his/her side. Yours, Famspear 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Government and taxpayer must both adhere to the rules of law, yes. But those rules were ofttimes written to favor the government.  And they are not always logical or sensible to someone without a Juris Doctorate.  The Category 2B kook walks in expecting real-world physics (or, more likely, TimeCube.com physics).  He gets crushed by a safe.  In contrast, the Category 1 person enters the courtroom armed with an 8-foot inflatable sledgehammer, tucked in his breast pocket.  Wile E. Coyote's problem is that he doesn't realize that he is in a cartoon!  He keeps ordering from the ACME catalog of frivolous arguments instead of figuring out how cartoonland really works.


 * And in regard to the government getting "slammed", it is readily apparent from the annual growth in the federal budget that none of these thousands of decisions has hurt it in the slightest. Whenever the individual loses, it may take them decades to recover, if they even recover at all.  Even when they win, it may take years for them to recover from the stress and expense of the process.  And then, even if the entire tax code was struck down by a court, the government would never yield the power to take an individual's private earnings.  Title 26 would be replaced by Title 26 (revised) the very next day, and Road Runner dances over the air to the next mesa.


 * It takes something like the Magna Carta or the Constitution to put a dent in government, and those things are put forth by armed men, angry as Hell, not by a single judge wanting to do the right thing. In the government's court system, the government wins, or it breaks even.  Period.  -- Logfromblammo 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Logfromblammo: Thanks for your comments. Yes, some laws are written to favor the government. Other laws are written to favor the individual. Both kinds are found in the Internal Revenue Code, and in other Federal codes. Many laws are not understandable by persons without legal expertise, not just tax laws. And the purpose of having courts of law decide disputes between individuals and government is not to "hurt the government" or "hurt the individual." And yes, court proceedings can be long and expensive, and can hurt the individual with limited resources more than they hurt the government, which has much more in the way of wealth. None of those facts has any material bearing on whether those laws are legally valid.


 * If the entire Internal Revenue Code or any other entire Federal statutory code were struck down as unconstitutional tomorrow, it would literally take an Act of Congress to replace it -- and an Act of Congress would almost certainly not happen quickly, especially considering the complexity of the tax code (or any other code), the physical logistics of enacting a statute, and the politics that would be involved.


 * My point is that the proper way to "put a dent" in government that has gone wild and wasteful, to put a dent in government that has grown unresponsive or irrelevant, is not to make silly, blatantly frivolous and foolish losing arguments that the law is something other than what it really is. The argumentative foundation for tax protesters is based on the big lie. The big lie is that the U.S. Federal income tax law is somehow something other than what it really is. Regardless of individual motivation (which varies from one tax protester to the next), the fundamental reality is that tax protesters are living a big lie to one lesser or greater degree, depending on the individual. Tax protester theory (and by tax protester theory I mean the voluminous, wacky, often self-contradictory theories that the U.S. Federal income tax law is non-existent, or invalid, or unconstitutional, or illegal, or misapplied, or that it doesn't apply to earnings of individuals, or any other word or phrase that tax protesters use) is simply an illegitimate, dishonest, ineffective and monumentally foolish means to try to achieve one desired result or another. The desired result -- whatever it may be as it varies from one individual to another -- may be good or it may be bad. But the important point is that the means being used to achieve that result is wrong. Tax protesting in this sense is in my opinion morally wrong. As a matter of law, tax protesting is legally frivolous -- and unfortunately for tax protesters that is not merely my opinion. Yours, Famspear 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is perhaps a bit complicated for a cartoon metaphor, so perhaps we had better just leave it there for the next guy. People that use tax protesters' arguments to justify not paying taxes stand about as much chance of standing victorious over the government as Wile E. Coyote has at catching and eating the Road Runner, and their playbook is about as useful as the ACME mail-order catalog.  -- Logfromblammo 18:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Security
While I am disappointed that you chose not to pursue adminship at this time, I understand your reasoning, even if I disagree that you need more experience first.

As far as I am aware, there are two issues involving "security". First, very recently, several administrator accounts (four or five, I believe) were hijacked by a hacker who went on a rampage (the hacker deleted the main page with each account). The problem appears to have been weak passwords on the part of the administrators whose accounts were hacked. Second, and this is a very different type of security, personal information revealed on a user page has been used by people like Daniel Brandt to root out other personal information which is then published on the web. As an unrelated example, one time when I was having a content dispute with a rather pernicious anonymous user, the user threatened to go to the state bar about me (at the time, I was revealing a little more on my user page than I do now). Needless to say, even though the user clearly had no legitimate reason to talk to the bar about me, it was frightening. I decided to include much less personal information (or, at least, information by which I could be personally identified) on my user page after that. · jersyko   talk  19:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

United States Taxation template
I'd like to get your thoughts on the U.S. taxation template under discussion at WikiProject Taxation. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 1:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions... and talk
Wouldn't you prefer to have a taxing system that is not so convoluted and whose direct tax be apportioned back to the people with complete transparency? Considering that there has been many instances in which billions of dollars go missing every year, wouldn't it be worth spending additional money to keep a strict watch on this unstable money supply?

Additionally I would like to know if you think the Federal Reserve still provides the U.S. with more benefits than it would if the U.S. were to just do away with the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard?--IntricateBalance 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear user IntricateBalance: I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "whose direct tax be apportioned back to the people" but I'll try to answer some of your questions. With respect to the Federal income tax (which of course is just part of the whole taxation system) I think the cost to society is pretty high in terms of administering the system. I understand that the benefit outweighs the cost, but that doesn't mean that the cost couldn't be reduced. The cost is a function in part of over-complexity, which in turn is a function in part of the competing goals that we set for our Federal income tax system (collecting funds to run the government versus redistribution of wealth in the form of incentives and special deductions, etc.).


 * Regarding billions of dollars going missing, I'm not sure what you're referring to. A lot of Federal income taxes go uncollected, but increased enforcement would mean giving more resources to the Internal Revenue Service -- which would be a politically unpopular act for some people.


 * On the Federal Reserve System, I really don't have a strong opinion. On the gold standard, how do you think using a gold standard be better than the system we have now? Yours, Famspear 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

by: "whose direct tax be apportioned back to the people" I mean to say a taxing system whose direct tax must be redistributed back to the people with transparency. I'm not advocating more bureaucracy as a means of surveillance. Just a simple flawless recording of what every single penny ends up paying for. A system that would by all means try to remain as simple as possible.

In all honesty I am not very familiar with the gold or silver standard, all I know is that it was the standard used before the federal reserve came into power (and seemed to work fine). My understanding of it is that it is a fixed money supply and therefore mass burrowing would be out of the question. However I do not feel that a need for mass burrowing is necessary now-a-days. If ever we need to burrow money we can always seek help from our allies like we are doing today burrowing billions of dollars everyday from Japan and China just to keep our economy on its feet. In fact a fixed money supply can act as a form of checks and balances by forcing us to be more prudent with regards to risks that involve much spending.

Additionally the reasons for which the Federal Reserve was placed into power can easily be solved today as technological advancements solve all the inefficiencies that had to be dealt with in the past- those being the same inefficiencies that gave rise to the Fed Res.--IntricateBalance 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you answered your own question there, IntricateBalance. A stable money supply enforces prudence, and the republic desires to be imprudent.  The only inefficiency that truly mattered in the creation of the Fed was the state's inefficiency in removing coins from purses and strongboxes.  The Fed is there to enforce a policy of monetary inflation while postponing the economic collapse it will cause for as long as is possible.  It collects a tax upon holding dollars, and grants that windfall to banking companies and the federal government's treasury.  Just think.  If someone were to give you $1 million a second, every second of every day, would you have the strength of character to hold up your hand and say "Stop!  This is wrong.  Take it all back."?


 * Of course not. Few people do.  But the Fed system, as unethical as any other inflationary fiat money, is certainly a more efficient system of revenue collection than the Federal Income Tax.  No returns are filed, or are even necessary.  Every dollar, everywhere, is taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether the IRS knows who has it or not.  Evasion is impossible.  Enforcement is effortless.  No accountants or consultants need be hired.  No regulators are required.  The only problem is that, at current levels of spending, were inflation the only tax used, the dollar would be worthless within a week.  So, despite its many flaws, the income tax is there to remove inflated dollars from circulation by ensuring that end consumers cannot spend them. -- Logfromblammo 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

United States Department of Justice Tax Division
Hey, what's up Famspear. I can't believe we didn't have an article on this little-known but very important agency of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Please improve the article if you can, as I have begun it already but it is still a stub.

By the way, I finally graduated from law school this week :-) --Eastlaw 07:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations. I'll respond also on your user talk page. Yours, Famspear 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Love your work
Hi. Thanks for your excellent edits to Montana Freemen. Any chance you could take a look at Sovereign Citizen Movement as well? Please? Pretty please? Seriously, I'd value any comments or advice you might have about that article. Cheers, CWC 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I went ahead and made some changes and put my 2 cents worth in on the talk page. Yours, Famspear 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

List of non-admins with high edit counts
I'm curious what the requirements for inclusion in the list are (other than being a non-admin and having a high edit count :p). I have about 4300 edits, but couldn't find my name. If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know as gently as possible. Regards, --Milton 01:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Milton Stanley: I don't know of any requirements for inclusion in the list other than those you stated. I believe you just add your name in the applicable place, if so desired. Yours, Famspear


 * Alrighty, that makes sense. I was worried that someone might be in charge of the list, and adding myself would be an affront to them and their work. Thanks much! --Milton 04:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Transfer Tax
Dear Famspear:

I re-revised the Transfer tax article in that I believe that Knowlton should be cited simply for the proposition that estate taxes are transfer taxes.

Obviously, you know both tax and the law – so do I. But most of the lay public doesn’t and going into all of the Knowlton holdings except the important one is ancillary and confusing.

But let me back track and explain why I cited Knowlton. What piqued me enough to edit the Transfer Tax article was the third paragraph which started:


 * "More broadly, in the United States, the term transfer tax refers to two kinds of taxes imposed at the federal level: the estate tax and the gift tax. . . ."


 * The paragraph then goes on to list current estate taxes plus the lexicon of QPRTs, et. al.

Obviously, the IRC lists estate and gift taxes as transfer taxes, but the article statement implies (i) singularity, that these are what transfer taxes are in the United States, and (ii) that estate and gift taxes are somehow different in kind from the taxes listed in the first paragraph. (Point 3 about the current status of U.S. estate tax and tax planning vehicles does not belong in a definitional article on transfer tax.)

By citing Knowlton, I intended to explain, implicitly, how the term “transfer tax” ended up in the IRC and why it was important that it be deemed a "transfer tax." I did this because of the article before I got a hold of it implies that “estate tax” was somehow different in kind from the other transfer taxes. (It stated “The term transfer tax has more than one legal meaning” – which is not quite true, more like various sub-definitions)

.  .   .   .   .   .   ..

Historically, the importance of Knowlton was that, in the wake of Pollock 5 years earlier, the United States had the power to tax estates, and that the reason it had the power was that the tax was a tax on the transfer of property, not on the property itself. (Oh my gosh, it has been 20 years since I last discussed these cases -- how and why do I remember them instead of important stuff like what not to forget at the grocery store?)

As Knowlton notes, the first issue was whether estate taxes “were direct taxes, and not being apportioned were hence repugnant to article 1, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States” 178 U.S. 41, 45.

The Court in Knowlton took pains to conclude that the tax was not a direct tax, but a tax on the transfer of property. In doing so, the Court defines (or confirms) what is a transfer tax is. The court first noted that:


 * “Taxes of this general character are universally deemed to relate, not to property eo nomine, but to its passage by will or by descent in cases of intestacy, as distinguished from taxes imposed on property, real or personal, as such, because of its ownership and possession. In other words, the public contribution which death duties exact is predicated on the passing of property as the result of death, as distinct from a tax on property disassociated from its transmission or receipt by will, or as the result of intestacy.” 178 U.S. 41, 47.

The court then goes on to differentiate itself from Pollock and then to make its other holdings.

I think, at this point, at least for purposes of a general article on transfer tax, the remainder of holdings in Knowlton are historical to the case and do not need mentioning in the article. Of course this is just my opinion. I hope that I have your agreement too.

Best Regards,

Swlenz 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Swlenz: I agree that we can leave out three of the four holdings in Knowlton v. Moore. I had actually inserted those for your benefit.


 * I don't know what you mean when you say that the article had implied that “estate tax” was somehow different in kind from the other transfer taxes.


 * I would disagree with the statement that the reason Congress has the power to tax estates is because the tax is a transfer tax. I do agree that the estate tax is indeed a transfer tax, of course (not a tax on property "by reason of its ownership"). But that's not the reason why Congress has the power to impose the estate tax.


 * Under the U.S. Constitution, there are only two KINDS of taxes that I can recall offhand that Congress cannot impose: taxes on articles exported from a state, and taxes imposed as a condition of voting for President, VP, Senate and House of Representatives.


 * A property tax, in legal parlance, is a tax on property imposed by reason of its ownership. For example, in Texas the property tax with respect to a given piece of real estate is imposed on me if I own that property on January 1st of a given year. In a sense, a property tax is a "state of being" tax. The "state of being" of course is the "state of title." In other words, "who owns the property" on the relevant date (often January 1st of a given year) is the key to determining who is liable for the tax.


 * The most common kind of property tax is an ad valorem tax. The tax is computed based on the value of the property. Another kind of property tax could be a flat tax -- a flat dollar amount on each property owner (I don't know whether we have any such property tax in the USA, but it's possible.)


 * Nothing in the Constitution prohibits "taxes on property by reason of ownership" -- or any other kind of direct tax. What the Constitution says is that (in general) if the Congress does impose a direct tax, the tax must be apportioned among the states by population, etc. (With respect to any income taxes that might be deemed to be direct taxes under the old Pollock rule, the apportionment requirement does not apply, but that's another story.)


 * Now, it would be practically impossible to impose an apportioned national property tax if that tax is an ad valorem tax -- but not because there's some rule against Congress imposing a property tax (there is no such rule). Instead, such a tax would be almost impossible because the tax could virtually never mathematically work out to the correct amount. Some states with big populations could have small property values and thus small taxes, etc., and some states with small populations could have big values and therefore big taxes. That, however, does not mean that Congress is prohibited from imposing "property taxes" merely because they are property taxes. Yours, Famspear 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/United States Tax Court‎
Hey, just wanted to let you know I've put United States Tax Court up for peer review. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up on that! Yours, Famspear 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance
I'm involved in a discussion on the Flat tax article regarding the lead and the proper definition of a flat tax. My knowledge on flat taxes is limited so if you have a chance perhaps you could review the discussion and the lead and comment. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-recourse debt
Thanks for taking a crack at cleaning up the discussion of Crane, Tufts and Woodsam in nonrecourse debt. But it still doesn't make sense. Could you take another look? When are we talking about the creditor, and when are we talking about the debtor? Boundlessly.

And could you add an explanation of the Woodsam case? I recall from law school that there's some weird outcome for mortgages placed on the property after the initial acquisition, perhaps non-recourse mortgages. Do you know what this is? The cryptic cite to Woodsam makes no sense unless this is explained. Boundlessly 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Boundlessly: Yeah, and I'll try to get to the Woodsam case soon. I'm a bit snowed under right now. Yours, Famspear 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cryer and Becraft Beat the DOJ
Don't know how true this is but I'm seeing blog postings to the effect that they were found not guilty. This seems to be your interest so I thought I would let you know - though you're probably already following it. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been following this all morning. For some reason we have problems from time to time connecting to the PACER system for Federal courts, and we started having that problem in mid-morning. No way for me to check PACER until that clears up.


 * Mr. Cryer and his attorney have been on the radio claiming they won an acquittal, though. I listened to Cryer's explanation only briefly, but from what I heard he seemed to track the first holding in Cheek v. United States, which says that the prosecution has not proved "willfulness" where the jury concludes that the defendant had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e., a belief that the tax law is "unconstitutional" is not a defense). Cryer appeared to make the point that he was able to explain to the jury what HIS BELIEF about the law is or was, but was not allowed to read legal materials to the jury, or to introduce legal materials as "evidence." Essentially, if Cryer won an acquittal, the jury presumably concluded that Cryer really believed in good faith what he claimed he believed. A jury can find for the defendant on that point, regardless of whether the defendant's belief is correct, and regardless of whether the defendant's belief is "rational" or "reasonable." If I heard Cryer correctly, and if that's how the case was handled, then at least to that extent the case would have been handled correctly.


 * As you know from reading the materials I have previously posted, the function of the jury in the U.S. legal system is not to determine "what the law is." This can be very frustrating for tax protesters. The jury's duty is to accept the instruction by the judge on what the law is, and not to make its own independent determination, not to read statutes, cases, etc. The jury's duty is to take the law as stated in the judge's instructions, look at the evidence in the case, accept as fact the evidence deemed by the jury to be creditable, reject the evidence deemed not creditable, and render a verdict of guilty or not guilty by applying the judge's explanation of the law to the facts. Yours, Famspear 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone posted this link Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges. Morphh   (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article. Curiously, on the court docket (as of about 5:00 pm on Sunday, July 15) there is still no entry showing a verdict in the case. I assume the news report is accurate, though. In the story, Cryer is quoted as having made some statements that are misleading. In the radio interview, at least the part I heard, he was more forthcoming. Whenever a tax protester is acquitted on criminal tax charges (acquittals on tax charges are rare, and even more rare for tax protesters), various tax protesters will almost invariably argue that an acquittal somehow "proves" there's no law imposing obligation to pay Federal income tax (the usual stuff, you know). Of course, as other commentators have noted, that's silly. It's like saying that when someone is acquitted of murder, there must be no law against murder. Another reason it's silly is that most tax protesters (and indeed most defendants in Federal criminal tax cases) are convicted. The most important reason it's silly of course, is that juries in criminal tax cases do not decide "what the law is." Famspear 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed Brown
He's not really an outspoken critic of Freemasonry - two lines does not make him a critic, especially when he's going on about "Zionist Illuminati". He's famous for tax evasion and the excuses he used for doing it. Moreover, he hasn't actually elaborated on the theories he uses. Jack Chick at least wrote a pamphlet. To be a notable critic, you need to be at it for years and gain some notoriety for it. MSJapan 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the quotations are accurate, I would have to disagree with the statement that Ed Brown is "not really an outspoken critic of Freemasonry." Regarding the assertion that Brown is not a notable critic of Freemasonry, not having been at it for years, etc., I would not necessarily disagree with that. I would think that notability would be increased where someone had, say, written articles, pamphlets, as you said. I notice, however, that you deleted links in the various articles to the article on Ed Brown. So, I assume that what you're driving at is that Brown is not notable enough to have the links in the Freemasonry-related articles. Famspear 03:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bar exam
Hi Famspear. Much like Texas, New Jersey doesn't post its bar exam results until November...plus, I have a bunch of paperwork to fill out... *grumble* --Eastlaw 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester arguments, etc.
Thanks. (I do my best.) Of course, you're a lot better in responding to their cogent, carefully thought-out arguments. (It's surprising how hard it can be to argue with someone who's totally nuts, isn't it?) — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's good exercise (exercising the brain)! Famspear 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Test
test 5:09 pm Central daylight time Famspear 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edward Lewis Brown
My, doesn't he make some brilliant arguments? Of course, he forgets to mention the Knights Templar and shapeshifting aliens, who everyone knows are the real power behind the conspiracy. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty sad. Famspear 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FairTax
I need your help. The FA article FairTax has charged as being POV for not having a criticism section, although this is against Wikipedia policy if it can be woven into the article like we have done. No specific details as to what is POV has been presented for correction by they have applied a POV tag and seem to want to nominate it for FAR (claiming the FAC was BS). Please take some time to assist in keeping this article under control. Like our tax protester articles, we tend to get a lot of visitors to this controversal topic and I'm the only main tax editor that watches it. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 0:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My wikistress level on this is at max and I'm at the point of walking away for Wikipedia. I'm about to crack and it's affecting my work and marriage. Please help out with this if you can.  The recent changes are extremely POV, I'm out of reverts, the arguments are making little sense to me, NPOV templates, FAR nom.. I'm just not sure I can do this anymore.  You know you work so hard on something.. put in hours upon hours into an article trying and retrying to get the prose right, doing research to present both pov, provide balance and relavant information... I didn't sleep at all last night... it's getting to me.  Thanks   Morphh   (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, hang in there. Actually, I didn't sleep well last night either. I've been up with a sinus headache. And of course I will look at the article. I know you make significant contributions to Wikipedia on a regular basis. I don't know how much I can contribute during the day this week (August 15 is a tax deadline for me), but I am definitely looking at the article. And thanks! Yours, Famspear 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Famspear
I have spent the last few days reading many of your refutions of lunatic tax protesters on various talk pages. I've found at least 5 full full fledged exchanges between you and different (apparently) protesters, and in each case you were amazingly detailed, analytical, and patient in your passages. I honestly don't know how you can do it. I find it amazing the number of gullible people out there, who find a tax protester website somewhere, take it as gospel and walk right into your weed-eater of logic right here in wikipedia. Please keep it up, as your efforts keep me hopeful that wikipedia can keep some foothold in the truth. One comment though, I've read your pschychological analysis and agree that a fair number of protestors fit this profile, but the persistance of so many has me convinced that some have a different and far more understandable motivation to keep spouting their nonsense--money. I think that many of them hope to lure the unwise to thier website to spend money on books, seminars, etc.  I know one thing -- should I ever find myself in a tiff with the IRS (knock on wood) I hope to have you at my side.Stanleywinthrop 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Stanleywinthrop, thanks. I assume there are other reasons for tax protesters as well (besides the money you mentioned and my own 25 cent psychology about transference). I have been studying tax protesters for years and dealing with them here in Wikipedia since late 2005. One interesting aspect of some tax protesters is that they sometimes attack me personally -- falsely claiming that I somehow work for the government, the obvious psychology behind this paranoia being that they feel that anyone that questions their delusions must somehow be a spy or agent for the government. (In everyday life, I actually represent taxpayers in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, not the other way around.) Many protesters view the tax law as a battleground between them and government personnel -- who are their Authority Figures. The concept that a psychologically normal person --who does not work for the government -- can analyze the law using rules of formal legal analysis (of which 90% of tax protesters know nothing) and thereby completely refute tax protester arguments is incomprehensible to many of these people. "Tax protesting" as we use the term in the United States (to mean expounding legally frivolous arguments about tax law) is a complex mix of extreme gullibility, technical incompetence (usually), paranoia, anarchism, transference, greed, and heaven knows what else. Yours, Famspear 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is too personal of a question, but I have to ask, Have you ever had a protestor come in to your office and ask you to present his/her arguments to the court? If so were you able to convince them otherwise, or did you have to refuse to represent them?Stanleywinthrop 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Stanleywinthrop: No, I have never had any communication with a tax protester in my professional practice. I've had lots of interplay with protesters, but it's always been through the internet, such as on the talk pages here in Wikipedia. Tax protesters are actually pretty rare as a percentage of total taxpayers (I don't have an exact statistic), so it's probably pretty rare to run into one. In fact, come to think of it, I don't remember even ever hearing of a colleague of mine running into a protester. The closest I have come so far is in a bankruptcy case where a business associate of the bankrupt debtor had some apparent weak connection to the tax protester movement, but neither the debtor nor his business associate were clients of mine (and I've never spoken to or met either individual).


 * Here in Wikipedia, I've run into a number of tax protesters in just a year and a half. Yours, Famspear 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question by --BobHurt 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to insert comments into your lengthy list of court citations on my personal page, but when I put a heading in to set it off, it messed up the Table of Contents at the top. How shall I fix that so it does not mess up the TOC but still provides a heading of some kind?

By the way, why don't you want to answer my question about common law crimes in federal court? You seem so forthcoming when you want to lambaste me in my personal discussion page and on the tax page. Why can't you show a forthcoming nature about this question? What bothers you about it? --BobHurt 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Bob: On your first question on the table of contents, I'm not sure. I'll try to look at it later (I'm not much of a computer guru).


 * On your question, why don't I, Famspear, want to answer your question about common law crimes -- my response would be the same: Why do you keep asking me that question? Why do you ask me what "bothers" me about the question? And why do you make comments like you just made -- about me "lambasting" you? Why are you asking me to show a "forthcoming nature"?? Why do you call me a "coward" one minute and then ask for my help the next? Ask yourself: What is it that is bothering you?


 * Although you continue to engage in personal attacks against me, I have this feeling you're a nice guy, Bob. It's almost as though you're unaware of what you're doing. Go back and read your comments on both your talk pages over the past 15 months, or however long it's been since you've been posting here. I see a pattern over and over. The pattern: First you come up with some wild tax protester argument in an apparent attempt to persuade me of some goofy theory. Second, I shoot the argument down. Third, you disappear for months at a time. Fourth, you return to the talk pages here in Wikipedia with more tax protester rhetoric to repeat the cycle or, in this particular case, you come with a question -- out of the blue -- about the Federal common law of crimes, and you seem to feel that it's urgent that I, Famspear, answer your question even though you don't want to say why you're asking.


 * As part of this patter, you keep setting me up as your Authority Figure and then engaging in a personal attack to try to tear me down as your Authority Figure. You also seem fixated on the U.S. government as an Authority Figure. You repeatedly accuse me of secretly working for the U.S. government or somehow helping the U.S. government, as though you believe working for the U.S. government is like being a Nazi or a terrorist or something. I do not now nor have I ever worked for the U.S. government or any other government. (You, however, were in the Navy -- so what's the deal?)


 * Go back and read your edits over the past 15 months, both under the user name BobHurt and under the name Bobhurt. Yours, Famspear 00:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Judicial review
Hi Famspear. I'm still having difficulties at Judicial review in the United States. Could you please help? Thanks.Ferrylodge 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Tender Cases
Hi again, Famspear. Thanks for your hep with the Judicial review article. Your help would also be appreciated at the Legal Tender Cases article. An anonymous user is insisting that paper money in unconstitutional. I've tried to be as accommodating as possible. Would you please review the situation? Thanks. I've also asked Eastlaw to help.Ferrylodge 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to put my two cents worth in. I may not be able to get to it until tonight later this week. Yours, Famspear 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be great. I appreciate it.Ferrylodge 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IRS Victim needs your help
Famspear, I just received a call from Ray Reynoso, 510 785 8900. He needs a Tax attorney to fight 4 counts of tax evasion. He lives in California. If you provide me with your business contact info, I'll forward prospective clients' requests to you. Contact me through http://bobhurt.com or http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen. Also, let me know how to send you private messages. --BobHurt 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Bob Hurt: Thank you but I have my hands full and I cannot take on this matter. Yours, Famspear 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hurt
I had actually noticed some of his edits on your talk page—though I hadn't realized the, uh, extent and breadth of his theories until you mentioned his talk pages and I went there. I was a little leery of responding to his question on the Income tax talk page, but I thought (hopefully, not naively) that pointing out that the page was about the concept of an income tax, not what laws are implementing it, would prevent an edit war on that page. I'll just have to wait and see.

(P.S., do you have any idea what N0 D1C4‎ is talking about on Talk:Tax protester? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. This is a apparently a new user. The only thing I've seen him/her do before this was fairly benign -- just moving the POV tag on the Tom Cryer article. You never know why people come up with some of the stuff they come up with. Famspear 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Devvy Kidd
Hi. I was looking around and found that someone has created an article for Devvy Kidd. Right now the article seems to be basically a political advertisement. I've made some edits to the article, but I'm uncertain about what to do next. I know that she is a tax protester, and I glanced through some of her websites, but otherwise I don't know much about her. Have any thoughts? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 01:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mateo SA: Wow, thanks. Yes, I know who this is. And the article links to another article I did not know existed: the one on We the People Foundation, a tax protester group for a protester named Bob Schulz. We already have quite a bit of information on Schulz and his organization in one of the tax protester articles (either constitutional or statutory arguments). So much of the Schulz info can be moved to the article on "We the People." The web sites for We the People were shut down just today, I believe, or just in the past few days, in compliance with a court order.


 * Back to Ms. Devvy Kidd - she's not one whose name I see that often, but I have looked at her stuff a few times. I'll be looking at the article, of course! It goes without saying that I appreciate your notifying me of anything in Wikipedia related to tax protesters (well, I said it anyway!). I like to stay on top of it. Yours, Famspear 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dentist: I Don't Have to Pay Taxes
Famspear have you seen this article? http://www.theledger.com/article/20070830/NEWS/708300552/1039Stanleywinthrop 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hadn't read that article, but I've read other articles on her. She was convicted earlier this week. It's sad. Famspear 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)