User talk:Famspear/Archive12

Randy Weaver

On March 4, 1992, Chief Deputy Marshal Ronald Evans and Deputy Marshal Jack Cluff decided to drive up the mountain road leading to the Weaver cabin. They were in plain clothes and rode in an unmarked four-wheel drive vehicle. As the two men made their way up to the Weavers’, they saw signs reading, "White Power is Supreme" [1] --Palming (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear user Palming: That is not what you were inserting into the article. You are trying to use that verbiage to have Wikipedia itself state that Weaver is a racist criminal.

Now, it might be perfectly reasonable to assume that because someone has a sign reading "White Power is Supreme," that this person is a racist. You can draw that conclusion. I could draw that conclusion. But we as Wikipedia editors cannot use Wikipedia to publish our own personal conclusions about whether Randy Weaver is a racist, in an article about Randy Weaver, even if Weaver really is a racist and even if he has a sign saying "White Power". Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction...

Hello Famspear,

I am contacting you about project I started called Wiredtape (Why? Red Tape). The purpose of which is to help people deal with regulations and red tape needed to get things done. The reason I am contacting you - is because I saw you are a contributor to tax and other legal issues, which are relevant to my site. I think it is important to distinguish between Wikipedia's purpose and Wiredtape's. Wiredtape doesn't seek to provide historical or encyclopedic information about its subjects; Wiredtape seeks to provide in-depth information regarding the bureaucratic procedures and regulations, informative articles about the terminology and in-depth guides to these processes.

I would like you to become a contributor on Wiredtape. This is a bit direct, and I am sorry for that, but I am in need of contributors :) - moreover, through Wiredtape, I am also trying to make the internet (and life really) a nicer and simpler place.

I hope you might consider this, Thank you, --Bfhappy (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You can contact me on my user talk page on Wikipedia, or on Wiredtape, or on IRC in #Wiredtape.

Talk:Gross income

Excellent research and information regarding the IP users' injection and WP:OR. However, I did want to comment that it seemed to be a bit strong, almost as if you have dealt this with user before as part of an editwar or something. Just my humble input. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiggerjay: Good point; I guess my response, or rather responses, was/were a bit too long and involved, since I've never seen this user before, and he/she wasn't engaging in an edit war. By way of background, I and other editors who edit the tax articles have been dealing with tax protester rhetoric for years, so sometimes I may tend to hurl a lot more information than I need to hurl at a new user. I hope I didn't scare the new user off from making productive edits. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've accidentally found myself in the same place before. :) It is funny how some people insist on the tax protester rhetoric... It would be funny to see "them" try to live their life and exist if taxes were not collected. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thurston Bell 861 case

Do you know anything about this one? If so, please add it to the Tax protester 861 argument article. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few reported cases involving Thurston Paul Bell. I believe he has his own place of "honor" at the quatloos web site, here: [2].

Preliminary notes to myself:

Bell v. Rossotti, 2002-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,755 (M.D. Pa. 2002).

United States v. Bell, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,661 (3d Cir. 2005), affirming the trial court's grant of an injunction to prohibit Thurston Bell from operating a website promoting sale of unlawful tax schemes - including the 861 argument - by construing the trial court's injunction narrowly to mean that Bell may be found in contempt for violating the order only where Bell advertises, markets or sells false tax advice, or where he directly or indirectly aids and abets other people to violate the tax laws. The Third Circuit also construed the trial court order's language -- requiring Bell to remove "materials designed to incite others to violate the law" -- as being limited to a requirement that Bell remove materials aiding and abetting the violation of the tax laws, noting that "Bell is free to criticize the tax system." The Third Circuit concluded that Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), had been the "wrong tool for tailoring the injunction in this case."

I'll work on adding something to the article, concentrating on the "861 aspect" of the case.

Also, there is United States v. Marston, 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,221 (8th Cir. 2008), just decided on March 10, where the court upheld multiple tax evasion and other tax convictions of a taxpayer who had followed Thurston Bell's and Larken Rose's "861 advice." Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Marston's in there already - that's why I asked about Bell! ;-) bd2412 T 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea that senility would strike me this soon. Famspear (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Either I was thinking that Marston was something I'd been writing about over at Quatloos, or I was just thinking that it was a case I had picked up in my daily reading. Or something.

Anyway, thanks, and I will try to add something on Thurston Bell in the next few days! Famspear (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to myself (if I can ever get back to this): Another Thurston Bell case is: Bell v. United States, 521 F. Supp. 2d 462, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,772 (D. Md. 2007), aff'd, 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,316 (4th Cir. 2008). Might not be any "861 issues", though. Famspear (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this may be a stupid question considering things but....

Are you a law student? Just curious is all. I stumbled upon your page and your discussions with BobHurt. Sure.. I couldn't and probably won't read through all that text, simply because it isn't my field, but as far as I can tell, you know what you're talking about.

Please respond on my talk page because I have too many pages in my watch list, and it seems your talk page is very active, meaning it would flood my watchlist if I put it on it.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply, no, I do not have a real interest in law. It was just idle curiosity, it may also have to do with the fact that a long time ago my friends said I should be a lawyer because I'm good at argueing(at least some times..). But alas, that is not my goal in life. I am a student of art, the art in question being 3D animation. I absolutely love the subject, and of course shall be very happy when I get a certification in it, along with a demo reel... because well, those who hire don't care about whether you're certified or not, but what you can do, how much you know the program.

But ya, law isn't my thing. I like creating objects, whether they be virtual, or real.

Good luck with any future cases you may have.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)