User talk:Famspear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /Archive 1: 6 December 2005 - 13 December 2005

• /Archive 2: 23 December 2005 - 10 March 2006

• /Archive 3: 23 March 2006 - 11 May 2006

• /Archive 4: 12 May 2006 - 5 June 2006

• /Archive 5: 15 June 2006 - 8 July 2006

• /Archive 6: 17 July 2006 - 5 August 2006

• /Archive 7: 5 August 2006 - 17 January 2007

• /Archive 8: 15 January 2007 - 8 February 2007

Contents 1 Wesley Snipes 2 Real Life 3 I haven't disappeared 4 Glad to help 5 Thanks, regarding 1957 Georgia Memorial 5.1 A Bit of Rebuttal 5.2 A note of thanks 6 Common Law, Nonrecourse debt 7 Gross Income Versus Gross Profit 8 Sixteenth Ammendment 9 USA v Langenour - DOJ Admits Many Crimes 9.1 Now You Call Me a Vandal? 9.2 Bob Hurt's response 10 Fair Market Value 11 More Bob Hurt comments 12 POV

[edit] Wesley Snipes

Hey Famspear, you've got to admit that Wesley Snipes is indeed one hell of a felonious nigger! What about that South African passport scam, eh? Pretty clearly trying to set up an escape route once his US passport is confiscated as a result of tax charges! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.148.27 (talk • contribs). on 11 February 2007.

Dear user at IP 121.44.148.27: Please see your user talk page for a suggested reading list, under the heading "Wesley Snipes." Yours, Famspear 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Life

Real life has been interfering, and will continue to do so for the next few months, I fear. See you around, soon! Robert A.West (Talk) 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I haven't disappeared

Sorry I've taken so long to reply to you—I keep meaning to come back here and say something, but I never did it until now. About the Federal Reserve Act edit—thanks. I'm glad you put that response on the talk page; I was planning to say something about that, but obviously, it would have taken me a long time to do so.

About the other thing: Yeah, they really seemed to come out of the woodwork for a while. Maybe they'd gotten their W-2's and were upset about the taxes they had paid? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to help

It's an interesting subject matter, to be sure. I don't envy you, but I'm glad that we have intelligent, dedicated editors to handle those types of articles. On a completely different note, have you ever thought of standing for adminship or do you have any interest in doing so? I would be happy to nominate you assuming you have no skeletons in your wiki-closet. Just let me know if you are interested. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Your grasp of policy is superb. I'll reiterate that I believe that you would make a wonderful administrator, even if you have no interest in becoming one :) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been meaning to get back to you on that. Right now my efforts are concentrated in the articles, especially articles on taxation and related legal matters. At the moment I'm pretty much under water with tax season, etc., and I'll have to think about your suggestion regarding adminship. Yours, Famspear 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, regarding 1957 Georgia Memorial

Dear Zantastik: Thanks to you, and to editors Will Beback, Jersyko, and Calton for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Wikipedia articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false, unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help; hopefully someome more knowledgable will eventually come along and incorperate material from other sources (newspaper articles of the time, journal articles about massive resistance to civil rights, similar "memorials" from other states, etc). So the article has a long way to go, but now at least it's a respectable stub, not a pov-laden piece written with all the grace of a post on a conspiracy theory message board ;) --Zantastik talk 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Famspear, thanks for your good work. May I suggest another article you might find interesting? Liberty Dollar. It's better now than it's been in the past, but even so it requires monitoring. It used to have a whole section devoted to the illegitimacy of "Federal Reserve Notes". -Will Beback · † · 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Bit of Rebuttal

Note: The following commentary from user Bobhurt is in response to my commentary at: [1]

I have just read your poppycock above and decided to comment upon it. You seem determined to ignore the reality that tax protesters can and do submit valid arguments with supporting law to show the criminal nature of the IRS and the courts associated with convicting people for failure to file, tax evasion, and tax fraud.

All of your psychology cannot undo the truth of such valid presentments. So I wonder why you feel the compulsion to obscure the truth by delivering back-biting assertions that tax protesters have psychological problems. Might you thereby show signs of your own mental disturbance?

You also seem to ignore the reality that tax protesters generally do not protest a valid imposition of a legitimate tax. They protest the criminal imposition of a tax that does not apply to them. So you should label them not as tax protesters but as crime protesters.

And note that their crime protesting does not generally extend all the way to the courts that illegally convict them of crimes when the real perps wear the transvestite garb of judges and the honest citizen disguises garb of DOJ and IRS employees.

Don't bother psychoanalyzing me for referring to judicial outfits as transvestite garb. Judges Do wear baggy black dresses, and the women judges often wear trousers underneath the dress.

You do not witness disrespect for authority in my writing. You witness disdain and disgust that criminals in government operat with impunity, partly because of the respect people like you show them.

Bob Hurt 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Bobhurt: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us. Yours, Famspear 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note of thanks

Famspear, I just wanted to thank you for the work you have done with regards to your persistence in speaking out against tax protester arguments.

The whole subject is totally new to me, as I just saw Aaron Russo's film America:Freedom to Fascism for the first time the other day and was inspired to look into some of the claims made in the movie.

So, again, thanks for putting so much of your personal time into the tax protester discussion. Rag-time4 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rag-time4: You're welcome. The way I view it is that all Wikipedia editors should strive to keep Wikipedia articles in conformity with the policies and guidelines, especially Neutral Point of View and Attribution (verifiability, and no original research). Yours, Famspear 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Law, Nonrecourse debt

I replied to your comment on "Common law" - I think an illustration is valuable, precisely because it raised the question it raised. (The American public understands the judicial role in constitutional and statutory interpretation only slightly better than, oh, say, a tax protestor.  :-) What are your thoughts?

Also, could you take a look at my blurb on "Nonrecourse debt." I could write about it from a corporate finance point of view, but all I could do on the tax side was regurgitate my old law school notes, without current understanding to make them really intelligible. Thanks

Boundlessly 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gross Income Versus Gross Profit

This is my first time trying to interact on Wikipedia and your comment here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gross_profit, is what prompted me to make this attempt.

I have been seeking out proper definitions for a number of accounting terms and have found it to be a circular exercise. Terms are being used interchangeably, but seemingly to me there isn't a clear definition about the proper use of terms and as your comment suggests I am experiencing needless confusion.

My look on Wikipeida has not helped my understanding.

These are some definitions I found on http://www.investorwords.com/

gross profit

Calculated as sales minus all costs directly related to those sales. These costs can include manufacturing expenses, raw materials, labor, selling, marketing and other expenses.

gross income

Pre-tax net sales minus cost of sales. also called gross profit.

gross profit margin

What remains from sales after a company pays out the cost of goods sold. To obtain gross profit margin, divide gross profit by sales. Gross profit margin is expressed as a percentage.

gross margin

Gross income divided by net sales, expressed as a percentage. Gross margins reveal how much a company earns taking into consideration the costs that it incurs for producing its products and/or services. In other words, gross margin is equal to gross income divided by net sales, and is expressed as a percentage. Gross margin is a good indication of how profitable a company is at the most fundamental level. Companies with higher gross margins will have more money left over to spend on other business operations, such as research and development or marketing.

cost of sales

On an income statement, the cost of purchasing raw materials and manufacturing finished products. Equal to the beginning inventory plus the cost of goods purchased during some period minus the ending inventory. also called Cost Of Goods Sold (COGS)

My motivation to understand these terms came from my attempt to correctly communicate where I think a company has wrongly stated its financial results, but the terms are so confusing, or interchangeably used, well, I'm not getting anywhere.

The press release that has left me confused about correct terminology is http://www.stockhouse.com/news/news.asp?newsid=4905022&tick=VV. They have reported a figure for gross profit which subtracts the "cost of sales," but that cost of sales does not include General and administrative expenses (I think this is OK), Selling and marketing expenses (I think this is very wrong), Research and Development (I think this is OK), Stock-based compensation (I think this is OK), Amortization of capital assets (I have no idea), Amortization of intangible assets (I have no idea) and interest (I have no idea).

The definitions appear to be very contradictory in that gross profit is saying all costs directly related to sales. The cost of sales is just raw materials and manufacturing costs in one definition. To me, this definition excludes something like marketing and selling costs, and most likely countless other expenses that it seems to be should be deducted before you get a gross profit.

This didn't look like it had any kind of link to me, dwothers is my user id on here.

Dwothers 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteenth Ammendment

Hi. The reason I changed this is because I searched for "16th ammendment" and did not find the article. I believe that I saw the 25th ammendment article written as the number, not spelled out, as well as one other ammendment. I think it makes more sense for all of those articles of be titles with the number, rather than spelled out. People usually do not write by spelling out the word if it is a number. Sorry if I changed that one, while leaving the other ones the same. If it is changed back, I won't change it back. I just thought it was a better title. Thanks for the message! Randomfrenchie 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have inquiries about international trade tax. kindly seek your email to dyon@versapack.com thanks vm. doris

[edit] USA v Langenour - DOJ Admits Many Crimes

Famspear, I know you'll never allow a word of this on the main income tax page, but try this dose of reality.

In this income tax case the DOJ asked the Laugenours to explain what they found wrong with their income tax assessments. The Laugenours responded that no valid assessments existed.

Then the Laugenours asked the DOJ for admissions. They stated what they considered as facts, and asserted estoppel against the DOJ for any failure to rebut with fact-based evidence. The DOJ did not respond at all. As a consequence, the Laugenours served judicial notice of the facts of the case, derived from the assertions they had made, and to which the DOJ, by its silence, had acquiesced. The following text shows the content of Docket #76 in the court filings:

USA v. Laugenour, Case # 2:06-CV-00183-GEB-KJM, USDC Eastern District of California, Docket #76

David E, Laugenour
Debra L. Laugenour
13834 Torrey Pines Drive
Auburn, CA 95602
530-269-1358

In The District Court of the United States
For the Eastern District of California

United States of America, )
Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No.2:06-CV-00183-GEB-KJM

David E. Laugenour, and Debra L.
Laugenour as Defendants and )
Plaintiffs on the cross-claim )

vs. )

McGregor W Scott and Goud P Maragani )
Defendants on the cross-claim )

David E. Laugenour and Debra L. Laugenour's notice to the Court under authority of Federal
Rules of Evidence r 201(d) – mandatory judicial notice of adjudicative facts

Plaintiff, The United States of America, by and through McGregor W. Scott and Goud P. Maragani, has confessed the following adjudicative facts:

1. The records of the Internal Revenue Service are business records as defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Business records as defined in the Federal ..Rules of Evidence are hearsay absent qualification for entry into the record of lawsuit through the business records exception.
3. The only business record which authorizes IRS collection activity is the summary record of assessment.
4. Other records such as the IRS form 4340 and RACS 006 cannot serve as the assessment because these forms lack requisite information such as the type of tax owed.
5. The term type of tax owed refers to an impost, custom, duty, or excise tax.
6. "Income" and "1040" are not types of tax.
7. Federal Law found at 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1)(2)&(7) makes it a felony crime for any officer or employee of the United States to compel any person to pay a tax on IRS 1040.
8. Every time an IRS or Tax Division attorney from the Unite States Department of Justice makes any sort of demand relative to IRS form 1040, they are committing a felony crime.
9. An Impressed Fund Account exists for the purpose of rewarding those who assist in IRS prosecutions.
10. The Impressed Fund Account allows for up to $25,000.00 to be paid for assistance in prosecutions relative to IRS forms 1040.
11. Anyone is eligible to receive rewards from the Impressed Fund Account including federal judges, federal magistrates, and federal prosecutors.
12. On one or more occasions a federal judge has been financially rewarded for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040.
13. On one or more occasions a federal magistrate has been financially rewarded for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040.
14. On one or more occasions a federal prosecutor has been financially rewarded for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040.
15. Two or more rewards paid to two or more federal judges, magistrates, or prosecutors for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040 would constitute racketeering.
16. Use of the courts to prosecute actions involving IRS form 1040 has the intent and purpose of federal judges, federal magistrates, and federal prosecutors receiving money and not for the purpose of putting money into the United States Treasury.
17. The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), determined that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution authorized no new taxing powers for Congress which were not inherent in the Constitution form the very beginning, that the income tax is an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, that nowhere is found support for the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment authorized some heretofore undiscovered tax lying between the two great area of taxation, and the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to harmonize the operation of the two great areas of taxation.
18. The United States Supreme Court has reviewed Brushaber more than sixty times without reversing the Supreme Court's determinations in Brushaber.
19. Neither any federal district court, nor any federal circuit court, and certainly no United States Tax Court has authority to overrule the United States Supreme Court's determinations in the Brushaber case.
20. Every single criminal or civil suit filed by the United States involving IRS form 1040 was a fraud absent a procedurally proper, lawful assessment including identifying the type of tax owed such as an impost, custom, duty, or an excise tax.
21. A notice of lien is an inchoate article requiring other action to perfect the lawful taking of property.
22. Taking property or even encumbering property based solely on a mere notice of lien is a felony crime.
23. An IRS levy does not apply to people in the private sector.
24. Every single dollar taken away from a person without a procedurally proper summary record of assessment, every single parcel of property taken away from a person without a procedurally proper summary record of assessment, and every hour of imprisonment for an alleged tax crime where there was no procedurally proper summary record of assessment is owed back to the people from whom the money was extorted; and as a matter of common law fraud, the people are entitled to treble damages.
25. Many of the people who have worked for the Internal Revenue Service or the United States Department of Justice, many federal judges, federal magistrates, and federal prosecutors have played a role in taking money or property under the false pretense that many millions of Americans and others who happened to be domiciled within the United States or its territories actual owed some sum to the United States Treasury where no procedurally proper assessment verified a valid tax debt, are nothing in the world but common criminals.
26. The basis for calculating an individual's tax bill is the Individual Master File for the respective individual.
27. It is the standard operating procedure of the Internal Revenue Service to falsely state, on the Individual Master File and the Individual Master File's underlying documents, that individuals domiciled in the several states of the United States are actually operating a business in one of the Territories of the United States.
28. Congress has made an alliance with the federal court system to the effect that if the federal judiciary will enforce the collection of the 1040 tax, the federal system can operate extra-legally for the purposes of fraud and extortion.
29. Personnel within the United States Department of Justice have actual knowledge that federal judges and prosecutors receive kickbacks, dividends, and bonuses from Corrections Corporation of America and have a stake in sending people to prison for tax crimes that are never proved.
30. The CID, "criminal investigation division" of the Internal Revenue Service maintains a file on every single federal judge and federal prosecutor to extort compliance with IRS fraud.
31. There are no summary records of assessment, IRS form 23-C, for each and every year that the Internal Revenue Service alleges that David F. and/or Debra L. Laugenour owe a sum certain to the United States Treasury.
32. There are no certified mail receipts, or parcel verifications, or process servers certifications verifying that David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour were noticed of a known duty, the breach of which, would warrant legal action in re: the summary records of assessment, IRS form 23-C, for each and every year that the Internal Revenue Service alleges that David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour owe a sum certain to the United States Treasury.
33. There are no Individual Master Files for David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour which would be the basis for claiming that David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour owed some sum to the United States Treasury.
34. There are no Individual Non-Master Files for David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour which support the claim that David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour owed some sum to the United States Treasury.
35. There are no documents underlying any Individual Master Files for David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour and Individual Non-Master Files for David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour.
36. There are no notices of deficiency directed to David. E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour to prove that the IRS exhausted administrative remedy before suing the Laugenours.
37. There are no mail or parcel certifications and/or service of process verifications proving that the IRS provided David E. and/or Debra L. Laugenour with notice of a known duty relative to a notice of deficiency.
38. There are no Treasury delegation orders directed to Gaud P. Maragani, Guy Patrick Jennings, and/or McGregor W. Scott.
39. Goud P. Maragani and McGregor W. Scott fabricated tax bills for David E. and Debra L. Laugenour.
40. Gaud P. Maragani and McGregor W. Scott are nothing in the world but common criminals with a pattern of fraud and extortion that exceeds the requisites for criminal and civil racketeering warranting: (a). Inquiry to determine how many U.S. Attorneys, IRS agents, federal judges, federal magistrates, federal clerks, and federal circuit court judges are engaged in this racket, (b). Prosecution of all U.S. Attorneys, IRS agents, federal judges, federal magistrates, federal clerks, and federal circuit court judges involved in the racket to the full extent of the law including five years in prison per count to be served consecutively [after all these are the "keepers of the law"], (c). the United States of America returning all that has been taken from the American people for a so-called 1040 tax, (d). exoneration of all those imprisoned for a so-called 1040 tax issue, (e). compensating all those who have been imprisoned relative to a so-called 1040 tax, and (f). executing each and every U.S. Attorney, IRS agent, federal judge, federal magistrate, federal clerk, and federal circuit court judge whose acts in re: the so-61led 1040 tax were the proximate cause of the death of the target of IRS racketeering — See 18 U.S.C. § 241 providing:

18 USC Sec. 241 01/19/04 TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights. If two or more, persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or, If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fired under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this sectlon or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [After all, if you can't trust the keepers of the law to obey the law…].

Prepared and submitted by:

David E. Laugenour and Debra L. Langenour

Certificate of mailing

I, David E. Laugenour, certify that February 21, 2007,1 mailed a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing mandatory judicial notice of adjudicative facts to: McGregor W. Scott, 501 I Street, Suite 10-100, Sacramento, California 95814 and to Goud P. Maragani, P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-0683.

David E. Laugenour

Copies to:

Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C, 20530-0001


Senator Ted Kennedy
2400 J.F.K. Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203

Congressman John Sullivan
5727 South Lewis Avenue, Suite 520
Tulsa, Oklahorna 74105-7146

Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
2615 West Jefferson
Trenton, Michigan 48183

Congressman Ron Paul
1225 West Way, Suite 301
Lake Jackson, Texas 77566

Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Chair
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

Congressman Christopher Shays
10 Middle Street, 11 th Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604-4223

Fred Hiatt
c/o The Washington Post
1150 15" Street N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20071

As you can see, the DOJ admitted to massive crimes, just what I and many others have told you and tried to tell others through Wikipedia for years. Our problem: we cannot obtain remedy through the courts because our judges and the DOJ incessantly violate the very constitution they swore to uphold.

While we admit the truth that some tax protester arguments don't have support of the constitution, we should also admit that people would not scramble so diligently for such arguments IF we had honest judges in the courts and honest attorneys in the DOJ.

What will you do to let the Laugenour case FACTS see the light of day in the income tax area of wikipedia?

By the way, I apologize for the terrible formatting of this content. Also, I have obtained the Laugenour docs 70-76 and posted them at http://ensnips.com/web/Lawmen-Files.

--Bob Hurt 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Bob Hurt: You are repeating and reworking frivolous tax protester arguments and blatantly false material that you have already raised elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Forget about tax law for a moment, and just try to think about the Federal Rules of Evidence I explained a few weeks ago. Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which deals with judicial notice, does not cover "requests for admissions." A Rule 201 request is made by one party to the Court. Whether the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) "responded" or not, a lack of response does not mean that the DOJ admitted" anything, or "acquiesced" in anything, or that the DOJ would be treated as admitting anything. Unless the Court grants the request, the party requesting judicial notice (in this case, Laugenour) receives nothing. Not surprisingly, the court did not grant the Laugenour's request for judicial notice of their totally laughable statements (see above). Indeed, no Federal court would ever grant such a silly request.

I understand that you feel very strongly that the Federal income tax is "bad." The fact that you believe the tax is bad does not mean that the tax is legally invalid. The Federal income tax is legally valid, and the courts have so ruled every single time a tax protester has raised arguments to the contrary. Working oneself up to the point of somehow believing that the Federal income tax is somehow invalid merely because one believes the tax is "bad" is a pervasive delusional behavior suffered by many tax protesters. This delusion has never gotten the tax protesters anywhere, and it never will. And the government is increasing its enforcement activity. I'm sorry, but that's it.

You should also note that for purposes of Wikipedia, you should avoid pushing non-neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles after you have been warned. (You have been warned.) Discussion in the talk pages on ways to improve the articles is OK. Repeatedly pushing non-neutral point of view in the articles themselves may be considered vandalism.

Please consider reading or re-reading the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now You Call Me a Vandal?

Next, I expect you to call me a terrorist, Famspear. I don't appreciate your patronizing, supercilious lectures, nor your tendency to impute motive or emotion to me. I do not feel that the income tax is "bad." I know that its implementation constitutes an egregious fraud, and I say that from a totally neutral point of view.

You seem to feel justified in condemning my comments because you, a taxpayer, believe the implementation of the income tax constitutes the epitome of fairness and legality. You help people with their tax problems by helping them to pay tax they don't really owe. And you wrongly call any factual assertions that show the income tax implementation in a bad light "non-neutral."

I believe you have cut a deal with the DOJ - they probably give your clients a break because you help them and their income tax scam cause so much with your manipulation of information that appears on Wikipedia. I believe you work AGAINST the real mission of Wikipedia.

In any case, I intend to continue posting factual articles to Wikipedia, not to vandalize or terrorize, but to educate, something you seem loathe to do, unless it supports the IRS.

When you get a chance, show me where Congress gave the IRS permission to operate an office in Texas or Florida (see 4 USC 72).

Now, according to the rule you mentioned, one can serve judicial notice of an undisputed, uncontested fact, and even though a person can request the opportunity to give notice, I do not see any REQUIREMENT to make such a request. Maybe you can enlighten me further.

Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts (a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts. (b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (c) When discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not. (d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information. (e) Opportunity to be heard. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken. (f) Time of taking notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. (g) Instructing jury. In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

--68.200.46.69 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I guess I had not logged in, so... --Bob Hurt 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear user IP 68.200.46.69: My comments above were addressed to user BobHurt/Bobhurt. If the user at IP68.200.46.69 is the same as BobHurt/Bobhurt, then I would respond by saying that no one here has called you a "vandal," and I don't think anyone is going to call you a "terrorist." Please go back and read the material I quoted regarding pushing a non-neutral, personal point of view. Basically, under the Wikipedia rules, repeatedly pushing non-neutral POV after having been warned may constitute vandalism. I have not said that you have violated the rule. What I have said is that you have been warned.

You may want to go back and read the quotes from Rule 201 that you inserted above, and then re-read my earlier comments about Rule 201. You still aren't getting it.

Let's look at these statements you made:

Now, according to the rule you mentioned, one can serve judicial notice of an undisputed, uncontested fact, and even though a person can request the opportunity to give notice, I do not see any REQUIREMENT to make such a request. Maybe you can enlighten me further.

I have already enlightened you. You have apparently ignored what I wrote. I explained how the rule does and does not work. You persist in clinging to the ridiculous idea the Laugenour filing under the rule somehow results in "admissions" by the opposing side. It does not. The Laugenours were unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain judicial notice of certain statements that not only are not judicially noticeable, but are laughable.

Regarding your statements:

I [the user at 68.200.46.69] do not feel that the income tax is "bad." I know that its implementation constitutes an egregious fraud, and I say that from a totally neutral point of view.

My response is that I assume that you're not actually trying to be funny, here -- so I'll just leave your statements at that, for now.

I am not "condemning" your comments because I, a taxpayer, believe the implementation of the income tax "constitutes the epitome of fairness and legality." I am explaining why the comments are incorrect and how the Wikipedia rules of Verifiability, Neutral POV, and No Original Research apply. I and the other editors who write in the tax law related areas of Wikipedia are not here to "support the IRS." We are here to edit Wikipedia.

Regarding your statement about Congress and permission to the IRS to "operate an office in Texas or Florida," you cite 4 U.S.C. § 72. That provision does not in any way invalidate the location of IRS offices throughout the United States, contrary to what you seem to be implying. Go back and read that statute.

Let's look at these statements you made:

I believe you [Famspear] have cut a deal with the DOJ [U.S. Department of Justice] - they probably give your clients a break because you help them [the DOJ] and their income tax scam cause so much with your manipulation of information that appears on Wikipedia. I believe you work AGAINST the real mission of Wikipedia.

Well, yes, that's it. Darn it, you uncovered my diabolical plot! I had been secretly conspiring for years with the U.S. Department of Justice so my clients don't have to pay Federal income taxes -- and in return I had been working for the DOJ against the "real mission of Wikipedia." Now you've ruined our grand plot. Oh, what'll I do now? Come on, now.

I and the other editors of Wikipedia are not engaged in some sort of plot to keep the "truth" out of Wikipedia. I don't care what the IRS and DOJ positions about the tax law are (except as those positions affect my clients). We people who practice in the area of taxation, either as lawyers or as CPAs, study the law ourselves and make our own determination of what the law is. Sometimes we agree with the IRS. Other times we disagree. Sometimes our clients win. Other times the IRS wins. We certainly don't get paid just to agree with the IRS, for heaven's sake. Get real.

When I and other editors of Wikipedia edit tax articles to conform to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that does not mean that we are engaged in some sort of "deal" with the IRS or the Department of Justice. I'm sorry, but there is no secret "deal." And Wikipedia editors are not "loathe" to "educate" Wikipedia readers on a particular point merely because that point does not "support the IRS."

Please think about what you are saying and how your comments will appear to Wikipedia readers before you make these kinds of comments. I respectfully and strongly urge you to go back and read the rules on Verifiability, Neutral POV, and No Original Research, and think about why we're really supposed to be here. Yours, Famspear 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Hurt's response

Dear user IP 68.200.46.69: My comments above were addressed to user BobHurt/Bobhurt. If the user at IP68.200.46.69 is the same as BobHurt/Bobhurt, then I would respond by saying that no one here has called you a "vandal," and I don't think anyone is going to call you a "terrorist." Please go back and read the material I quoted regarding pushing a non-neutral, personal point of view. Basically, under the Wikipedia rules, repeatedly pushing non-neutral POV after having been warned may constitute vandalism. I have not said that you have violated the rule. What I have said is that you have been warned.

Yes, you warned, and you implied I am a vandal. I expect you to accelerate your denigrations because you seem to prefer ad hominems.

You may want to go back and read the quotes from Rule 201 that you inserted above, and then re-read my earlier comments about Rule 201. You still aren't getting it.

Let's look at these statements you made:

Now, according to the rule you mentioned, one can serve judicial notice of an undisputed, uncontested fact, and even though a person can request the opportunity to give notice, I do not see any REQUIREMENT to make such a request. Maybe you can enlighten me further.

I have already enlightened you. You have apparently ignored what I wrote. I explained how the rule does and does not work. You persist in clinging to the ridiculous idea the Laugenour filing under the rule somehow results in "admissions" by the opposing side. It does not. The Laugenours were unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain judicial notice of certain statements that not only are not judicially noticeable, but are laughable.

Actually, I DO get it, but I disagree with you. Apparently you did not read the other case documents. I suggest you read docket #70-76.

First of all, no provision of 201 requires permission from the judge to give the judge judicial notice of some undisputed fact. And in the Laugenour case, the DOJ did not dispute the factual assertions in the request for admissions which you call laughable. Those assertions constitute facts because the DOJ, having a crystal clear duty to rebut any falsehoods in the assertions, failed to do so, and their silence constituted acquiescence. Meanwhile, 201(d), invoked by the Laugenours in their document #76 above, allows MANDATORY judicial notice over which the judge has no discretion whatsoever. The judge MUST take judicial notice of the adjudicative facts of the case as presented above. I would like to know why you think otherwise.

Regarding your statements:

I [the user at 68.200.46.69] do not feel that the income tax is "bad." I know that its implementation constitutes an egregious fraud, and I say that from a totally neutral point of view.

My response is that I assume that you're not actually trying to be funny, here -- so I'll just leave your statements at that, for now.

You assume incorrectly. I have studied the IRC and related elements of the Constitution intensely for the past several months. I have read an immense amount of convoluted construction, but failed to find a substantive regulation that makes the typical American subject to or liable for any income tax for revenue purposes. I have decoded numerous Individual Master Files for non-filers and found lies in every one of them. I have seen a multitude of notices of federal tax lien (668(y)) and notices of levy (668(w)), and not a single 23c Assessment Certificate signed by a duly authorized Assessment Officer under penalty of perjury as required in 26 USC 6065, corroborated by 7806. I have reviewed numerous court case documents, including some recently that prove the courts conspire with the DOJ to defeat the Paperwork Reduction Act in 44 USC 3512 on the pretense that it does not apply to 1040 forms. I have concluded, as did the Laugenours and as have thousands of other intelligent Americans who study the law and the cases, that the implementation of income tax constitutes the most massive fraud ever perpetrated upon Americans, and that most of the DOJ attorneys and federal court judges involved in income tax cases belong in prison because of their associated crimes. I see the Laugenour's mandatory judicial notice of adjudicative facts as the honest truth. And I see your effort to denigrate it as scurrilous.

I am not "condemning" your comments because I, a taxpayer, believe the implementation of the income tax "constitutes the epitome of fairness and legality." I am explaining why the comments are incorrect and how the Wikipedia rules of Verifiability, Neutral POV, and No Original Research apply. I and the other editors who write in the tax law related areas of Wikipedia are not here to "support the IRS." We are here to edit Wikipedia.

No, you definitely do condemn my comments (you implied I'm a vandal, remember?) merely because you are a taxpayer and want everyone else to be one, even though most Americans have no position under the purview of 26 USC because they do not engage in any activities for which Congress has imposed an income tax. You definitely want to perpetuate the lie that the IRS fairly imposes that direct tax, even though the Constitution and numerous supreme court rulings prove Congress cannot lawfully impose a direct tax upon Americans. And that explains precisely why you use the ruse of "Wikipedia rules" to support the IRS and its goals of turning all Americans into virtual slaves. Your denunciation of me for presenting the very VERIFIABLE Laugenour case documents provides a case in point. You denounced me and the Laugenour documents even though I did not deliver to you any rumor, patriot myth, frivolous argument, or unfounded assertion about the income tax. Instead, I delivered indisputable, incontrovertible, hard, cold FACT, to which the DOJ attorneys agreed by the mechanism and operation of their silence. Why did they refuse to answer? Because a mountain of proof exists to show up any answer that favored them as a lie, and the Laugenours would then nail them for perjury.

Regarding your statement about Congress and permission to the IRS to "operate an office in Texas or Florida," you cite 4 U.S.C. § 72. That provision does not in any way invalidate the location of IRS offices throughout the United States, contrary to what you seem to be implying. Go back and read that statute.

YOU read it, right here: "All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law." Do you not see the words "except as otherwise expressly provided by law?" The IRS cannot operate an office outside DC without an Act of Congress permitting it. I found such acts for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, but not for any of the states of the union. The IRS, as an adjunct to the Treasury Department, definitely has an attachment to the seat of government. Do the words of the law suddenly make no difference to the Secretary of Treasury or Commissioner of Internal Revenue? I imply nothing. I tell you point blank that the IRS has no authority to operate offices in the union states. If you think otherwise, show me the proof.

Let's look at these statements you made:

I believe you [Famspear] have cut a deal with the DOJ [U.S. Department of Justice] - they probably give your clients a break because you help them [the DOJ] and their income tax scam cause so much with your manipulation of information that appears on Wikipedia. I believe you work AGAINST the real mission of Wikipedia.

Well, yes, that's it. Darn it, you uncovered my diabolical plot! I had been secretly conspiring for years with the U.S. Department of Justice so my clients don't have to pay Federal income taxes -- and in return I had been working for the DOJ against the "real mission of Wikipedia." Now you've ruined our grand plot. Oh, what'll I do now? Come on, now.

YOU come on now. I cannot think of any other reason for your behavior. The information you presented in the "Income Tax in the US page" seems well-written, but it ignores the facts that stare you right in the face. You cannot honestly do a good job on the page because of your prejudice against anyone and anything opposing the IRS and its implementation of the income tax. You disingenuously claim that any such opposition is not "neutral," but you fail to accuse yourself for your own non-neutral view that the IRS properly and lawfully implements the income tax. You have even gone so far as falsely to represent the supreme court decisions so as to support the incorrect view that the income tax constitutes is a direct tax that need not abide by the rule of apportionment. In reality, the 16th amendment did not repeal CUSA I:2:3 or I:9:4, and the income tax constitutes an excise on income earned from taxable activities.

Why do you bother denying the obvious truth that you operate as a secret agent and Wikipedia henchman for the DOJ and IRS, and you merely pose as a tax attorney who saves his clients a lot of money in their IRS battles just so you'll have a credible cover in your daytime job?

I and the other editors of Wikipedia are not engaged in some sort of plot to keep the "truth" out of Wikipedia. I don't care what the IRS and DOJ positions about the tax law are (except as those positions affect my clients). We people who practice in the area of taxation, either as lawyers or as CPAs, study the law ourselves and make our own determination of what the law is. Sometimes we agree with the IRS. Other times we disagree. Sometimes our clients win. Other times the IRS wins. We certainly don't get paid just to agree with the IRS, for heaven's sake. Get real.

Give me a break, Famspear. I don't know about any of the other editors, but I know about you from your behavior and your comments. I and many others have tried to set the record straight about the income tax and the IRS in Wikipedia, and you ALWAYS side with the IRS and refer to us as tax protesters or our expressed views as tax protester or frivolous arguments. You seem to forget the many people before you who studied the law for themselves and concluded the IRS operates with the DOJ and corrupt judges as a criminal racketeering enterprise that has become the envy of mafia-like crime families the world over. I refer you to the venerable Louisiana attorney Tommy Cryer, CPA Joe Bannister, CPA Sherry Jackson, and many other professionals who have suffered punitive attacks by the DOJ just because they oppose the illegal implementation of the income tax. And let's not forget other notable attorneys like Virginia attorney Mark Lane, Alabama attorney Larry Becraft, and Arkansas attorney Oscar Stilley (who forced the DOJ to drop their 6-count case against Robert Lawrence under threat of using the PRA defense). These men and women all will tell you that you are utterly full of baloney for your warped interpretation of the constitution and income tax laws. And you seem hell-bent on keeping the truth about the income tax out of Wikipedia.

When I and other editors of Wikipedia edit tax articles to conform to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that does not mean that we are engaged in some sort of "deal" with the IRS or the Department of Justice. I'm sorry, but there is no secret "deal." And Wikipedia editors are not "loathe" to "educate" Wikipedia readers on a particular point merely because that point does not "support the IRS."

In your case, it does mean you have some sort of a deal, because you could not do a better job if you were directly on the payroll of the DOJ and IRS. I feel absolutely certain that you benefit financially because of the way you stroke them with your so-called neutral point of view. And don't tell me that I don't write from a neutral point of view when I post articles. I admit to falling short of perfection, but in that case, you can help by editing my articles, not by throwing them out altogether.

The Laugenour case serves as a healthy illustration. I posted a few sentences and tried to put a link to the content of docket 76 above. The content got summarily deleted because of lack of credible citation (or some such thing), and you deleted the few sentences. I tried intentionally to express them neutrally. I simply stated that the Laugenours served judicial notice of crimes by the IRS, DOJ, and judges, or something to that effect, and that the DOJ agreed through their silence. I cited the case, court, and docket number.

What did I hope to do? I hoped to show readers the truth that the IRS, DOJ, and associated judges function as the Laugenours believe, and as they proved - as a criminal racketeering enterprise. And I hoped to use neutral language and viewpoint to do so. I did not express any of my own opinions about them. I hoped to let the court document suffice for informing the readers of the true nature of the IRS, DOJ, and federal judges in income tax-related cases.

So far, you have merely accused me of non-neutral writing, but you have not shown me the lack of neutrality in my comments, nor tried to guide me to a more neutral manner of presentation. Why? Because you don't want any information on Wikipedia that shows the IRS or DOJ in a bad light, no matter how neutral or factual the assertions.

I believe, as a knowledge pool, Wikipedia should reveal the facts of the matters, not just the facts that please you or other prejudiced editors. I protest your high-handed assertion or implication that I do not write neutrally and write thoroughly debunked tax protester or frivolous arguments. I want to know how to take my protestations to a higher committee, for if you truly believe the position you have expressed to me, you indeed have to much pro-IRS bias to serve as an editor by yourself.

Please think about what you are saying and how your comments will appear to Wikipedia readers before you make these kinds of comments. I respectfully and strongly urge you to go back and read the rules on Verifiability, Neutral POV, and No Original Research, and think about why we're really supposed to be here. Yours, Famspear 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Market Value

Could you take a look at the Fair market value article again? A somewhat unexperienced user seems to have made a bit of a mess of it. Seems to be opinionated, but not vandalism, so I dared not revert. I was hoping you could make more sense out of it since you were the last to edit it before. Jochietoch 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Bob Hurt comments

Famspear, perhaps I fall far short of the ideal contributor to Wikipedia, but I think you do too, under these circumstances. I sincerely believe you lack sufficient intellectual integrity to serve alone as editor of content on the income tax pages. I admire your knowledge and writing skills. I truly do. And frankly, I feel grateful for your contributions. I see you as a racing engine that runs roughly around the race track. You need some minor tuning and tweaking to purr like a kitten, so to speak. And that consists first of all of an attitude adjustment. You need to know that you not only do not know it all, but also that you do not know as much as you think you do of the truths regarding the income tax. I see similarities between you and the medical doctor who knows diddley squat about nutrition, and so his cancer patients ignore nutrition rules and stick only to the limited advice the doctors dole out, and therefore die miserable, broke,undernourished, and overmedicated. You can't tell such a doctor anything about alternative treatments because no pharmaceutical company has vetted them, and he will not search them out on his own. And staring him in the face lies an enormous new field of nutrition in glyconutrients that restore immune function and extend lives, which of course the doctor ignores, to the detriment of his patients. Maybe you, like him, have become too poisoned in your thinking by your law school, bar associates, or courtroom criminals who pose as judges, DOJ attorneys, and IRS agents. Maybe you'll never listen to reason from anyone but them, and so you'll never learn reason. Or maybe you'll open your eyes and intellect and pay attention to the plethora of myriads realities about the truths and crimes associated with the DOJ and IRS, and the judges they own.

Yes, I hope people do pay attention to what I write. You should too, imperfect though it may seem. You should join my information mailing list by sending email to Lawmen Mailing List. You can check out the archives at Lawmen mailing list archives.

Meanwhile, I hope YOU will learn to show a little more grace and encouragement to people like me. I retired a few years ago. I'll turn 64 next month. I spend all my discretionary time studying law, writing about my discoveries, helping others with associated questions (not giving legal advice, mind you) by showing them the discoveries, and stroking either my precious little wife or my classical guitar. I figure that within the next few years I shall possess monumental knowledge about the law, particularly the laws related to income tax, and you will find it profoundly difficult to pull the wool over my eyes in that arena.

From time to time, I shall interact with you through this somewhat ridiculous medium (I have grown used to Word and don't like the arcane markup of the Wikipedia editor), though I would far prefer to deal with you through email. And occasionally, I'll post something to the Wikipedia knowledge base. Maybe in time my postings will rise to the standards you demand of writers, and instead of deleting them, you will edit them as you job title implies so they will seem more postworthy. Perhaps you will also show more BALANCE in your assessment of the neutrality, for even a neutral point of view when expressed truthfully can tell a negative fact. The IRS deserves a truthful story, and so does the income tax.

The story on wikipedia today about income tax in the US fundamentally tells a lie. If it told the truth, it would explain that the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings outlaw the imposition of a direct tax upon the people, that Congress has not imposed a direct tax upon the states since the Civil War era, and that the income tax, an indirect tax, consists of an excise upon taxable activities, not a direct tax upon the people. It would explain that 26 USC and 26 CFR provide the law code and Treasury Department regulations for levying and collecting income tax from taxable activities, and that 26 USC and 27 CFR provide the law code and regulations for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It would explain that any section of 26 USC that has a corresponding section in 27 CFR does not empower the IRS, but rather empowers the BATFE, and that the IRS has no authority to impose liens and levies upon private sector people. It would explain that the IRS, under orders from its Commissioner, the Secretary of Treasury, and the President, has implemented the income tax as direct tax, and it has entered lies in the Individual Master Files of Americans so as to justify the tax to IRS computers and the Automated Collection System that includes a lien and levy process. It would explain that in the end, the IRS uses the convoluted nature of the IRC and rulings by errant judges to extort money from people under color of law, commit fraud on a nationwide scale, operate offices in the union states without the authority of Congress, and operate the world's largest and most criminal and treasonous racketeering influenced corrupt organization (RICO), and destroy the lives of anyone and everyone it can who opposes it, particularly those who do so publicly.

That, Dear Famspear, constitutes the central truth about the income tax that Wikipedia should publish.

--Bob Hurt 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Blatant POV pushing post warnings can be a blockable offense. I couldn't block him, however, as I've been involved in a dispute with him. If it persists, we could consider reporting to WP:AN or starting a user conduct Rfc. I could also ask specific uninvolved third parties to assess the situation. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)