User talk:64.173.197.166

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tractrix

I was wondering if you had any reason for the removal of the planetmath notices at Tractrix article. They are needed because of the Wikipedia-planetmath exchange project. -- < drini | ∂drini > 15:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] To Famspear

Its obvious you don't know what you are talking about. If you bothered to actually read the CFR citations, you would know you are here simply regurgitating lies.

[1]

Here is the text of the definition from the REGULATION:

"Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."

Dear anonymous user at IP 64.173.197.166: No, it's obvious that I know what I'm talking about and that you do not -- and that you are deliberately posting false information in Wikipedia. Now you compound the error by citing to 27 C.F.R. 250.11! This provision has nothing to do with the fact that "Secretary" as used in the Internal Revenue Code (title 26 of the U.S. Code) means "Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate" and not "Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." The definition in 27 C.F.R. section 250.11 is for purposes of part 250 of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations! Read it. If you actually bothered to read the CFR citations, you would know you are again citing to the wrong title of the Code of Federal Regulations. The relevant regulations are in title 26 and title 31 of the C.F.R., not in title 27. Please observe the rules of Wikipedia, including the rules regarding copyright, Verifiability, and Neutral Point of View. Yours, Famspear 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: Dear fellow Wikipedia users. Just so we're clear about this latest transgression by the anon user at IP 64.173.197.166, his or her citation to "27 C.F.R. 250.11" -- which (as of 29 April 2006) is no longer even a valid citation, the regulation having been recodified as 27 C.F.R. section 26.11 -- actually relates to 27 C.F.R. section 26.1. Further, sections 26.1 and 26.11 are part of part 26 of title 27 of the C.F.R., "Liquors and Articles from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands." Part 26 deals with:

(a) The production, bonded warehousing, and withdrawal of distilled spirits and denatured spirits, and the manufacture of articles in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to be brought into the United States free of tax;
(b) The collection of internal revenue taxes on taxable alcoholic products coming into the United States from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands;
(c) The transfer [ . . . ] of Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands spirits in bulk containers or by pipeline from customs custody to the bonded premises [ . . . ]
(d) The deposit of the distilled spirits excise taxes [ . . .] into the Treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands on all articles containing distilled spirits [ . . . ] produced by those two U.S. possessions, and transported into the United States [ . . .]
(e) The deposit of the distilled spirits excise taxes [ . . . ]into the Treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands on all rum imported into the United States [ . . . ]

Part 26 of title 27 of the C.F.R. is not the same as TITLE 26 of the Internal Revenue Code. Part 26 of title 27 of the C.F.R. is not the same as TITLE 26 of the C.F.R. The regulations in part 26 of title 27 of the C.F.R. have nothing to do with the validity of the Federal income tax or the status of the United States Department of the Treasury and its bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, as a U.S. government agency, no matter how many phony text dumps the user at IP64.173.197.166 makes in Wikipedia. The IRS is not headquartered in Puerto Rico. The IRS is headquartered in Washington, DC, not far from the old post office building and the FBI headquarters. I have walked in front of the IRS headquarters myself many times, and so have probably millions of other people.

An IRS Revenue Agent is nowhere defined in any statute or CFR provision as "Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." An IRS Revenue Agent is an IRS Revenue Agent. A Puerto Rico Revenue Agent is a Puerto Rico Revenue Agent. This is not rocket science. Yours, Famspear 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tax protester rhetoric: Internal Revenue Service article

Dear anonymous user at IP 64.173.197.166:

The following tax protester rhetoric you inserted in the article on the Internal Revenue Service has been removed. Insertion of this material violated Wikipedia, rules, guidelines, etc., including Verifiability and Neutral Point of View.

The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.
When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cyberspace soapbox.

Yours, Famspear 03:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Post-script:

Dear anonymous User: You apparently did not read the talk page accompanying the article, or you ignored it.

The IRS is, as stated, in the article, a bureau within the Department of the Treasury. I hope this does not come as too much of a shock, but under our legal system there is no legal requirement that any particular agency or bureau be established by an act of Congress.

Your reference to Chrysler Corp. v. Brown is false. In Chrysler Corp. v. Brown the Court specifically referred to the "Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced" -- to use the Court's own words. That statute created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It did not specifically create the agency or bureau known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (later the Internal Revenue Service) -- and there was (and is) no legal requirement that any statute do so. By the way, the Chrysler case was not a tax case. No issues regarding the validity of the tax laws or the status of the IRS as a bureau of the Department of the Treasury were decided by the Court.

By inserting these kinds of misleading edits, you are violating at least two Wikipedia policies: Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Please do not edit articles in Wikipedia without reading the actual texts of the court decisions you are citing.

Although not created by an Act of Congress, the Internal Revenue Service is specifically mentioned by name in many places in the Internal Revenue Code, including:

26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(6)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(8)(A)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(6)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(7)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(10)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(12)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(19)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 6104(a)(1)(B)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(c)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(i)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 6213(g)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 6320(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 6334(e)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6404(d)
26 U.S.C. § 6404(e)
26 U.S.C. § 6404(f)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(d)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7123(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7123(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7123(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7217(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7217(b)
26 U.S.C. § 7217(c)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7409
26 U.S.C. § 7429
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(5)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(B)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4(C)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(7)(B)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7433(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7452
26 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(c)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(d)
26 U.S.C. § 7522(b)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7528
26 U.S.C. § 7602(c)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7608(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7608(c)
26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(E)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(b)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(b)(3)(A)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(b)(3)(C)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(g)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(h)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7612(c)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7624
26 U.S.C. § 7801(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(3)(C)(i)(I)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(3)(C)(i)(II)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(1)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(2)(C)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(d)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(d)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7809(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7811(a)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(iii
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(v)
26 U.S.C. § 8023(a)
26 U.S.C. § 8023(b)

The Internal Revenue Service is also specifically mentioned in many statutes other than the Internal Revenue Code, including:

31 U.S.C. § 301(f)(2)
31 U.S.C. § 330(c)(1)
31 U.S.C. § 713(a)
2 U.S.C. § 438(f)
5 U.S.C. § 500(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9508(a)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(b)(1)(A)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(b)(2)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(a)(1)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(b)(1)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(d)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(e)(2)
12 U.S.C. § 4146(1)(A)
23 U.S.C. § 143(b)(2)
23 U.S.C. § 143(b)(3)
42 U.S.C. § 6381(a)(2)(A)
42 U.S.C. § 10502(2)(D)

There is even an Act of Congress called the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998).

Have a nice day, Famspear 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text dump on Talk page for Internal Revenue Code

Dear anonymous user at IP 64.173.197.166 who posted material at Talk:Internal Revenue Code: I have now exposed the fact that you copied and pasted large amounts of material from another web site into the Wikipedia Talk page on the Internal Revenue Code. This is called a "text dump." Your conduct was likely a violation of copyright. Yours, Famspear 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt by user at IP 64.173.197.66 to blank his or her own talk page

Dear anonymous user at IP 64.173.197.66: I now note the fact that you attempted to blank out essentially this entire page in two edits at 13:48 on 7 April 2006, and that the deleted material was shortly thereafter restored by a Wikipedia editor. If you don't want to see yourself publicly embarrassed on the pages of Wikipedia, the answer is not to try to delete the text where your Wikipedia violations are exposed. Please read and observe the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, policies, etc. -- which can be found with only minimal effort -- and think before you edit. Thanks, Famspear 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caution regarding 28 April 2006 text dump at Talk:Internal Revenue Code

Dear anon user at IP 64.173.197.166: Please do not copy and paste massive amounts of tax protester rhetoric from other web sites as you did on 28 April 2006 at Talk:Internal Revenue Code. Also, assuming you are the same user who posted the prior text dump described above, you appear to be deliberately posting material you know to be false, including the false statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service not being mentioned in titles 5 or 31 of the United States Code, etc., etc. You have already been provided with both cites and links to the actual statutes. Yours, Famspear 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not change other people's comments in Wikipedia

Dear anonymous user at IP 64.173.197.166: Please do not change the body of the text of the comments of other editors of Wikipedia on Wikipedia talk (discussion) pages as you did at Talk:Internal Revenue Code on 30 April 2006. It is considered rude and perhaps dishonest. For example, when I interlineated my comments regarding your postings, I did not try to change the actual text of your comments. I also clearly differentiated my comments from your comments (in this case, with brackets and bolding). Yours, Famspear 00:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final spam warning

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

Do not add links to:

Accounts used:

--A. B. (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam:
--A. B. (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)