Talk:Tom Cryer/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Tom Cryer (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	1 >>

Contents 1 General edits 2 Problematic language 3 More objectionable material 4 Do not engage in drive-by tagging 5 Precise name? 6 Libelous Statements 7 Requesting page protection to get your own way? 8 Various changes were reverted 9 Submission of Revised Version 10 Trimmed court cases 10.1 Notes 11 Behavior of Mpublius 12 Revert War 13 Civil penalty? 14 Looking for Cryer quotation 15 Orwellian Writing 16 Been doing research on the Dan Evans citation on the subject of Tom Cryer 17 More on neutral point of view 18 A note about citing sources 19 I will take this VERY slowly. 20 False statement about indictments 21 Excerpt from Evans material 22 Cryer Biography source 23 Citing cases cited by Cryer 24 Equal time for both sides of the controversy 25 "...an article on Tom Cryer and for other purposes." 26 More on behavior of Mpublius 27 Famspear bias 28 Slight reform 28.1 Still more reforms

General edits

I made some corrections to the article, which was self-contradictory. I think in one place the article said Cryer was convicted of tax evasion (incorrect) and in another said that the tax evasion charges had been dropped (correct, I believe). Also, the Department of Justice does not "indict" anyone. The Department of Justice may bring charges in what is called an "information." An "indictment" is brought by a grand jury. There were various other inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the article; I have added edits to clarify the article; more to come (probably).

This cases in interesting although I'm not sure the subject of the article is particularly notable (I have no strong opinion either way, at this point). The defendant put on what is known as a Cheek defense, which is pretty common. The case is unusual only in that the defense actually worked in this case. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised that it worked. I'd love to see the docket on PACER for this one. I'll have to see if one of the gals in Legal will get me our password. Sidatio 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be changing the article based on what seems to be a bias against the Tax Protester movement. I don't care for tax protesting, nor am I particularly tied to the concept; but the case is what it is, and deleting portions of the tax protester argument simply because "it's been said before" is completely unnecessary, as it directly pertains to the ruling of the willful failure to file. The willful failure to file is related to his income tax, and hence his position on income tax is not only relevant, but necessary to grasp the context of the ruling Sugaki

It's also user interpreted, which is original research. Furthermore, the passage you added slants POV on the subject and doesn't accurately reflect the position Cryer took during his defense. The article seems to be as neutral as it can be with the meager sources it currently has. Sidatio 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not user interpreted. The article clearly states his position. I'm paraphrasing his claims of the trial, which are published in the article. Hence it doesn't fall under original research, as I'm not introducing any extra "research" other than what is already stated in that article. That you can say the article is trying to be neutral is puzzling to me: on the flip side you're deeming my revisions for NOT being neutral for essentially paraphrasing the same exact info from the article. If you think I'm slanting it, then revise the copy; but to delete it omits a key part of the context of this case. Sugaki

The key word here is paraphrasing. Lost in your "paraphrasing" are key differences in this case and most other tax protester cases - most notably, the trust fund and how payments from that fund were viewed. There's a loophole in the tax law that apparently allows these payments. Furthermore, Cryer does, in fact, state that some of those payments WERE income - another fact lost in your translation, and renders the portion and therefore did not fall under the definition of income original research. Sidatio 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: Regarding the following verbiage above:

the case is what it is [ . . .]

--and this verbiage:

[ . . . ] as it directly pertains to the ruling of the willful failure to file. The willful failure to file is related to his income tax, and hence his position on income tax is not only relevant, but necessary to grasp the context of the ruling [ . . . ]

This was part of the problem with the Wikipedia article; there was no such "ruling" in the case, the Shreveport Times never stated that the Times had verified that there was any such ruling, and the Wikipedia article did not accurately describe the case. The jury returned a verdict that Cryer was not guilty of willful failure to timely file a tax return. That "not guilty" verdict would not be treated as a ruling that Cryer had no legal obligation to avoid willfully failing to timely file that particular tax return (or pay the related tax), any more than a "not guilty" verdict in a murder trial would somehow be treated as a ruling that the defendant had no legal obligation to avoid committing a murder. This is explained in the next section of this talk page, below. See also the precise wording of the Shreveport Times article (and see also the official court record on PACER, if you have authorized access). Nothing in either source says that the court itself actually ruled the way Cryer is quoted as having claimed the court ruled. By the way, Cryer is still liable for the unpaid taxes, and for monetary penalties and interest on the failure to timely file the return AND the failure to timely pay the tax; Cryer continues to have a serious IRS problem. A criminal acquittal does not relieve the defendant of the tax obligations. Famspear 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic language

The following language was introduced into the article by one editor, and removed by another:

According to Cryer, the wages he earned were not income, but instead were an exchange of labor and energy for wages--and therefore did not fall under the definition of income. The attorney has allegedly stopped paying income taxes on his wages for more than 10 years.

As explained below, the removal of this material was proper.

The statement that Tommy Cryer claimed that the wages (here, the term "wage" is used as a short-hand term for "compensation for personal services") he earned were not income is probably accurate in the sense that he may have made that claim outside of court. In court, however, that argument would have been presentable only to the judge, not to the jury. In an interview shortly after the trial, Cryer admitted that the judge would not allow Cryer to present that argument to the jury. Instead, Cryer argued to the jury that it had been his belief that wages were not taxable -- not that wages are actually non-taxable by law. From a legal standpoint, there is a big difference between those two propositions. Whether wages are taxable is a legal question that was decided long ago; the answer is that wages are taxable - i.e., includible in gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 61.

Instead, Cryer put on what is known as a "Cheek defense." That is, he argued to the jury that his failure to timely file tax returns was not "willful." A Cheek defense is generally an argument that the defendant's conduct was not willful -- that the defendant had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code.

The jury acquitted Cryer, which means that the prosecution was unable to persuade the jury -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that Cryer's failure was willful. Under the U.S. legal system, the jury has no authority to "rule" on whether wages are taxable, and that question was not even presented to the jury in Cryer's case.

In short, the statement -- that according to Cryer, his wages were not income -- would be misleading in the context in which it was presented in the article, since the jury was not presented with that question, and did not decide that question. Leaving the language in the article tends to give the false impression that the jury somehow "ruled" in Cryer's favor on that issue. Juries do not render "rulings," and in Federal tax cases juries are not presented with questions like "are wages taxable." The classic analogy is the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where the jury found the defendant not guilty. The jury in the Simpson trial was not presented with, and did not decide, the issue of whether murder is against the law. The jury decides fact issues, not points of law.

By the way, the argument -- that the wages you receive are an exchange of labor and energy for wages -- is actually correct. (Some tax protesters even add the language "an exchange of equal value.") The problem is that, from a legal standpoint, the fact that there is an exchange of "equal value" has nothing to do with whether the wages are taxable. Indeed, virtually all transactions, whether a sale of real estate, or a sale of a loaf of bread, or an exchange of wage compensation for labor performed, are transactions where both sides are providing equal value, by definition.

For Federal income tax purposes, "gain," "profit" and "income" are not computed by comparing the supposed "difference" between the value received and the value transferred. Again, those two values, in a normal "arm's length transaction" are, by definition, equal.

The courts have uniformly ruled Cryer's "wage" argument both without legal merit and legally frivolous.

Every time a tax protester is acquitted of criminal tax charges (and that happens only rarely), tax protesters try to falsely claim that the acquittal somehow means that the court ruled that wages were not taxable, etc., etc. No court has ever ruled that as a general proposition wages are not taxable for Federal income tax purposes.

Outside of court, Cryer continues to spout tax protester rhetoric. The sad reality is, however, that he owes lots of back taxes, and the Internal Revenue Service will continue its enforced collection actions against him. Acquittal in a criminal tax case does not relieve a defendant from having to pay the back taxes. Yours, Famspear 20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Shreveport Times article contains the following quote from Mr. Cryer:

The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

The statement that the court "could not find a law" that made Cryer liable or made his revenues taxable is blatantly false. The court would have had no trouble finding the law on that point (see generally 26 U.S.C. § 1. 26 U.S.C. § 61, 26 U.S.C. § 6012, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, 26 U.S.C. § 6651, and related statutes) -- and the question of whether that law exists was not even presented to the jury. Cryer himself admitted in an interview (with his attorney Larry Becraft joining in, by the way) that Cryer was not allowed to present the frivolous "there is no law" argument to the jury. Also, notice that the Shreveport Times article does not corroborate Cryer's claim that the court itself "could not find a law" that made him liable. The article simply quotes his post-acquittal statement.

Again, juries in criminal cases render verdicts; juries do not rule on legal issues.

It is ironic that Cryer use a Cheek defense to gain his acquittal. In the Cheek case, a tax protester named John Cheek went to prison for willfully attempting to evade Federal income taxes -- on, guess what? -- wages earned as a pilot for American Airlines. In the Cheek case, the United States Supreme Court reversed Cheek's first conviction (based on an error at the trial) and granted him a re-trial. But the Supreme Court later refused to hear John Cheek's second appeal after his conviction following the re-trial. Mr. Cheek went to prison for evading taxes on wages -- compensation for personal services. Yours, Famspear 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting a segment of your response,

Instead, Cryer put on what is known as a "Cheek defense." That is, he argued to the jury that his failure to timely file tax returns was not "willful." A Cheek defense is generally an argument that the defendant's conduct was not willful -- that the defendant had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code.

I'm curious, what is your source in this that he used the "Cheek defense"? Published info is scarce on the web for this case, and it seems both you and Sidatio are pulling out purported facts of the case (IE taking advantage of a loophole on trusts) out of the blue. Is your claim of using the "Cheek defense" speculative, or do you have links showing this? If you do have sources that can validate this, then they ought to be included in the entry itself. I freely admit I'm not legal expert (really, I'm just fixated on this because I'm fascinated with the case), but my understanding was that his argument against the willful failure to charge was that he thought he didn't need to file. Jury bought that, and he was acquitted. I understand that jurors decided on the facts of the case and not the law, but if he really was like all other tax protesters, then why is 1) IRS still unable to force him to pay backtaxes (or send him to jail) 2) the jury unable to decide against Cryer in an issue that's so well-tread? The fact that he hasn't been paying for so long, and hasn't been in jail yet indicates to me that something sets this apart from other tax protesting cases. Sugaki

I'll let Famspear address the technical merits of the case (this is what he does for a living, as I understand), but I'll address two small portions:

• but my understanding was that his argument against the willful failure to charge was that he thought he didn't need to file. Jury bought that, and he was acquitted.

That's the Cheek defense as described above.

• As far as the trust issue: [1]. Now, I can't tell you for certain this is the kind of trust he had set up - I didn't get up to Legal today to access PACER - but it's an example of a trust that did, until recently, offer a loophole. I probably misspoke in this case, though. The more I read about Mr. Cryer, the more I realize his defense centered solely on his belief that he didn't have to file tax forms on his trust dividends. So, in that case, I was more than likely wrong. Still, Famspear covered the points nicely. Sidatio 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sugaki: Excellent questions – I’ll try to answer them here.

First, let’s look at the crime of willful failure to timely file a tax return. This is one of four crimes listed in Internal Revenue Code section 7203, 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

To obtain a conviction against a defendant for willful failure to timely file a Federal income tax return, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant was required by statute or regulation to file a tax return concerning his income for a specific, named tax year (this is sometimes called an element of “attendant circumstance”);

2. The defendant failed to file that return on a timely basis (or, as of the time of trial had still failed to file at all, if such is the case) (this is sometimes called an “actus reus” element);

3. In failing to timely file the return, the defendant acted willfully (this is called a “mens rea” element).

Notice that there is no requirement that the defendant have owed any tax. We are talking here about willful failure to timely file a tax return -- not tax evasion, not willful failure to pay a tax, or other tax crimes.

To obtain a conviction for willful failure to timely file an income tax return, the prosecution must persuade the jury that each of these three elements has been met. Merely proving (i.e., persuading) on two of the elements, for example, is not sufficient for a conviction.

Element 1 is generally proven by demonstrating to the jury that the defendant had gross income, for the year in question, of more than the amount required for a tax return. For example, for the year 2006, a single (unmarried) individual having over $8,450 in gross income must file a Federal income tax return, regardless of whether he or she has any tax liability. (A person could have $100,000 of gross income and yet have $120,000 in deductions and owe no tax, but that person would still be required to file the return.) On this element, the court probably will not allow either the prosecutor or the defendant to argue TO THE JURY ITSELF that, for example, “wages are not taxable.” The point that “wages are taxble (i.e., includible in gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 61) is a legal issue, not a factual one. If the prosecution introduces evidence that the defendant had more than $8,450 in gross income for, say 2006, the jury MAY find (but is not required to find), as a matter of fact, that the defendant was required to file a return for that year.

The second element is satisfied where the defendant failed to file the return by the due date. Technically, even a return filed one day late would satisfy the requirement of a “return not timely filed.” Typically, the government tries to prove this element by testimony and documentation from the IRS that no return was received for the year in question.

The third element is the “mental” element, the “mens rea” element, of “willfulness.” In the context of Federal tax crimes, willfulness means the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. The defendant must have been aware that what he or she was doing (or failing to do) was against the law. In the “Cheek” case the Supreme Court indicated that there must be an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code, not a belief that the tax law is unconstitutional. This willfulness requirement is called a “specific intent” requirement, and is an exception to the general rule under American criminal law that “ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.” In Federal criminal tax law, ignorance of the law IS A VALID DEFENSE.

Now, which of these three elements did Cryer defend on? He could have defended on all three. He could have argued, hey, I really did file the return, and I filed it on time. We know that he did not make that argument. He is a tax protester, and he argues that he did NOT file, and that he was not required to file.

Cryer almost certainly argued lack of willfulness (generally called the Cheek defense, as verbal shorthand). Indeed, the vast majority of defendants in criminal tax cases will argue "lack of willfulness" or (even if the defendant does not take the stand and testify) try to introduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution's claim that the defendant acted willfully.

Did Cryer also argue that he did not have income over the filing requirement amount? We don’t know for sure, but it’s unlikely since he was an attorney with a law practice that presumably would have put him well above the filing requirement. Notice that the judge would not let Cryer try to get around this by arguing to the jury itself that, well, I had a hundred thousand dollars in income, but it’s not taxable. Irwin Schiff and others have made the same complaint about trial court judges not allowing defendants to “argue the law” to the jury – and that’s because judges just won’t allow it in a tax case, any more than they would allow it in a murder case. Under our legal system, you make legal arguments to the judge (perhaps with the jury not in the room, or perhaps where the jury cannot hear the argument). The judge makes a legal ruling, then you bring the jury back in.

My understanding that Tommy Cryer used the Cheek defense is based on my memory of an interview he conducted shortly after his acquittal, I think within a day or two after the acquittal. I do not have a written transcript of the interview, and I do not know whether one exists.

You indicated above that you feel that if I have sources that validate whether Cryer used the Cheek defense, this should be included in the article. I partially disagree. For purposes of the Wikipedia article as it’s presently written, we do not need sources that validate that Cryer used only the Cheek defense (the mens rea defense), or that Cryer used both the Cheek defense and the attendant circumstance defense, or whatever the case was. The article does not go into that. Maybe the article can be expanded to include more material, though. If more material is added, the material should of course be properly sourced.

Under the rules of Wikipedia, it is the responsibility of the editor who wants to include (or keep) material in an article to produce proper sourcing, etc. It is not the responsibility of other editors to prove that the material is wrong. My explanation of the Cheek defense was made only here on the talk (discussion) page -- as an elaboration on my explanation of why the removal of the erroneous material from the Wikipedia article was proper (although I realize that the material wasn't intentionally put in the article with the knowledge that it was erroneous).

You stated that your understanding was that Cryer’s argument against the willful failure to file charge was that he thought he did not need to file. I BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT. Indeed, you are confirming my own understanding about Cryer's use of the Cheek defense. If Cryer argued to the jury that “he thought he did not need to file,” that is by definition a “lack of willfulness” argument (a Cheek defense). You stated that the jury bought that, and that Cheek was acquitted. I BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT THERE, TOO.

You seem to be assuming that the IRS is “unable to force him to pay backtaxes” [sic]. With all due respect, that is incorrect. If he has no money or other property, then obviously he can’t pay (at least right now), but that’s a separate issue. The IRS can legally seize much of Cryer’s property without even going to court (I don’t know whether the IRS has begun this process or not, or whether the IRS intends to do so.)

No one really knows for sure why the jury was “unable to decide against Cryer in an issue that’s so well-tread.” The vast majority of criminal tax defendants, especially tax protesters, are convicted. But a few tax protesters, like other criminal tax defendants, are from time to time acquitted, and Cryer won’t be the last. (I can give you specific other examples, with names, if you like.)

You say that “[t]he fact that he hasn’t been paying for so long, and hasn’t been in jail yet indicates to me that something sets this apart from other tax protesting cases.” I would completely disagree with that statement. I have studied tax protester cases for years and my impression is that thousands and thousands of people (not just tax protesters) have been refusing to pay taxes for many, many years, and yet they are not being sent to jail. The sad fact (or the happy fact, depending on your point of view) is that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Internal Revenue Service devote relatively little in the way of resources to criminal tax enforcement. Indeed, the DOJ is so skimpy on this area that under official DOJ policy, the local United States Attorney in each district does not even have the administrative authority to ASK a grand jury to indict someone on an Internal Revenue Code offense. Only the Tax Division of the DOJ in Washington can give the go-ahead. Only about half of all criminal cases referred to DOJ by the IRS are accepted for prosecution, according to statistics published by Syracuse University.

You can look at my own tax practice. I have prepared thousands of tax returns, and I have not had a tax return even audited by the IRS in well over ten years. This is not a testament to my ability to prepare tax returns or anything like that. This is a testament to the fact that only 1 or 2 percent of all Federal income tax returns are audited ("examined", in IRS parlance).

Anyway, I will try to look for more information regarding Mr. Cryer’s case. Yours, Famspear 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as a footnote to the above, I seem to recall from the interview with Tommy Cryer after his acquittal that either he or his attorney Larry Becraft (who was also in the interview) stated that the judge did allow Cryer to explain to the jury essentially what Cryer's understanding of the law was, but that the judge would not let Cryer argue to the jury that Cryer's understanding was a correct statement of the law. I believe either Cryer or Becraft specifically mentioned that the judge would not allow Cryer to present written materials to the jury as "evidence" of the law. Based on the way judges in other cases have treated tax protester arguments, it appears that this description by Cryer and Becraft (if my memory of what they said is correct) is probably accurate. Indeed, this is the classic example of how judges handle tax protesters who present Cheek defenses: the defendant is allowed to try to show the jury that the defendant honestly believed what he believed -- but is not allowed to try to convince the jury that the defendant's belief is the correct statement of what the law is.

Of course, Cryer is quoted in the Shreveport Times as saying something very different -- that the court "couldn't find the law," or words to that effect. That is not what I recall Cryer and Becraft saying immediately after the verdict -- at least not in the part of the interview I heard (although I did not hear the entire interview). Yours, Famspear 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify something I wrote earlier. Above, I wrote:

Cryer almost certainly argued lack of willfulness (generally called the Cheek defense, as verbal shorthand).

I want to be clear that in Federal criminal tax cases, a Cheek defense is not the only kind of "lack of willfulness" defense. We recall that the Cheek defense is essentially that the defendant lacked willfulness, i.e., did not voluntarily intend to violate a known legal duty, based on an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Code. But there are other kinds of "lack of willfulness."

For example, a U.S. citizen is kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq, and is held against his will. The deadline for filing his tax return passes. Obviously, the terrorists just don't happen to have blank copies of the tax forms available for the U.S. citizen, and they wouldn't allow him to fill out and mail them even if they did have the forms. The U.S. citizen would love to get away from the terrorists and get back to the good ol' USA and file his tax returns, but he cannot do so as long as he is held hostage. That would be a situation where the taxpayer would not have voluntarily intended to violate a known legal duty, and he would not be guilty to willful failure to timely file the return. Another example would be health problems, such as where the taxpayer is in a coma. Yours, Famspear 15:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, health problems are recognized as a possible reason for eliminating civil penalties for failure to file a return or pay taxes, where willfulness is not required. I don't recall acts of terrorism, or even kidnapping, as being listed there.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for avoiding civil penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6651, the taxpayer generally needs to show that the failure was due to "reasonable cause" and not due to "willful neglect." The IRS might have a list of possible "acceptable" excuses somewhere, but ultimately if the IRS employee refuses to abate a civil penalty and the taxpayer has the resources to go over that employee's head, abatement of a civil penalty is gonna be a facts and circumstances determination.

In a criminal case, lack of willfulness (whether based on terrorism, kidnapping or whatever) is strictly a factual question for the jury to decide. Even if there is a supposedly "official" list of "acceptable" excuses somewhere, that list would not legally bind or limit a jury on a "willfulness" determination in a criminal case. Yours, Famspear 19:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The following language was introduced into the article by one editor, and removed by another:

According to Cryer, the wages he earned were not income, but instead were an exchange of labor and energy for wages--and therefore did not fall under the definition of income. The attorney has allegedly stopped paying income taxes on his wages for more than 10 years.

This statement is true and should have been left in the article because it is a fundamental part of the Cryer story. This article has remained a worthless stub despite this and numerous other good contributions because of repeated censorship from a biased contributor. An article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago recommended that people who are really interested in a subject should consult the discussions, which are more detailed and subject to less censorship.Mpublius 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A contributor defended the removal of this material as proper: [material posted elsewhere on talk page] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) on 17 August 2007.

Dear editor Mpublius: I moved your comments down to the end of this section. Please do not change other editors' comments in any way. Also, it would be best not to insert your comments within another editors comments. If you want to emphasize your point by referring to what another editor has written, an effective method is to copy and paste the applicable verbiage from the other editor and use it in your own posting.

Also, please do not add POV or similar tags to articles, except after extensive discussion on talk pages. Added such tags prior to dialog on talk pages is called drive by tagging, and is not appropriate.

Also, please refer to the Wikipedia concept of "Assume Good Faith." Many, many edits by other contributors will not sit well with you or me or some other editor, and virtually all editors have some sort of "bias" or another.

I'll try to respond to your comments on the article itself later this evening. Yours, Famspear 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Famspear, you claim that the IRS can now *legally* seize Tom Cryer's personal property, apparently without warrant, which is illegal under the US Constitution. Without a warrant issued on probable cause or criminal conviction, the IRS is absolutely out of their jurisdiction. ~ Synaptic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk) 13:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

~ I would like to posit that having the most prominent editor and apparently arbiter of the perceived validity of this biography, especially of this particular subject, being intrinsically intertwined in the arguments advocating the invalid nature of questioning the legality of the income tax by way of personal occupation, reliant on the continued propagation of the practices associated with the ordinary consensus of the subject, however rhetorically backed by code citations or bench rulings, which are fallible, constitutes an intrinsic violation of the neutrality of said arbitration. I speak of course of the user titled "Famspear." It is logically abhorrent that someone dedicated to the tacit enforcement of the current tax code consensus through their associated employment, be allowed such a prominent and profound power of arbitration over the articles dealing with these subjects. The manner by which this subject is approached by user "Famspear" is boldly written in red ink, and is stealthily masqueraded about as the correct and valid position. This, based on his supposed expertise on the matter through professional practice favorable to continued enforcement of present consensus, legal or illegal? The saying has traditionally been "I smell a rat," but I will spare him the condescension. ~ Synaptic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk) 14:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP66.90.247.77: This is not a question of what I personally "claim." Under U.S. law, there is no legal requirement for a "warrant" or a "court order" for the Internal Revenue Service to seize property of a taxpayer to satisfy a tax debt secured by a Federal tax lien. The statute authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to seize assets without going to court is 26 U.S.C. § 6331. For exceptions to this rule, see 26 U.S.C. § 6334.

Example: In the case of Brian v. Gugin, a group of taxpayers (including a Mr. Ralph Brian) sued a group of IRS and other government employees, (including Ms. Phylis Gugin), for what the taxpayers claimed was a violation of their rights. The following is an excerpt from the court’s decision in the case:

The plaintiffs' premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice. [ . . . ] The plaintiffs also cite 26 U.S.C. §7402 which grants jurisdiction to the district courts to issue orders, processes and judgments as well as enforce IRS summons. This section does not require a court order in order to levy on property under §6331.

A "levy" by definition is a summary non-judicial process which provides the IRS with prompt and convenient method for satisfying delinquent tax claims. [ . . . ] [T]he IRS has the option under §6502 to collect its assessment by either a levy or a court proceeding [ . . . . ]

Accordingly, the IRS agents were acting within the authority granted under §6331 and no court order was required for the attempted levy on Ralph Brian's property. Concerning the constitutional violations alleged by the plaintiffs, this court cannot find that any constitutional rights were allegedly violated if the attempted seizure was lawful under §6331.

It is important to note that the plaintiff Ralph Brian is not without a course of action under the Internal Revenue Code. If the delinquent taxes claimed are not delinquent, the taxpayer may bring an action with the IRS for a refund. Brian v. Gugin, 853 F. Supp. 358, 94-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,278 (D. Idaho 1994), aff’d, 95-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,067 (9th Cir. 1995) (italics in original).

This law has been on the books since at least August of 1954, and very possibly since before that. This law is used all the time, and no court has ever ruled it "unconstitutional." Sorry, but that's it.

I understand that you feel, in reference to me personally, that it is "logically abhorrent that someone dedicated to the tacit enforcement of the current tax code consensus through their associated employment" -- whatever that means. Please restrict your comments in Wikipedia to comments about the material, not comments about the dedication or "employment" of other Wikipedia editors. You may want to review the Wikipedia rules about personal attacks. Yours, Famspear 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the power of the Internal Revenue Service under section 6331 to legally seize assets without going to court has nothing to do with whether the taxpayer has been charged with or convicted of any criminal offense (tax-related or otherwise). Indeed, prosecutions for Federal tax crimes are relatively rare (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), whereas administrative levies (non-judicial seizure of assets by IRS under section 6331) are quite possibly more common (I don't have the statistics in front of me right now). Yours, Famspear 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More objectionable material

A new, anonymous user inserted the following material, which has been moved to here:

The reason why he was acquitted was because the jury found that he had a good-faith reliance on the law and that the government did not show him any lawful authority for its demand that he file an income tax return and pay income taxes. There is no law making the average American liable for an "income" tax; income is only the profit generated from taxable activity; earnings and wages cannot be separated from your principal and profit or capital and profit and, therefore, are not income as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and the fundamental, God-given right to earn a living through any lawful occupation, which has been recognized as being just as fundamental, just as basic and just as constitutionally protected as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, is not a taxable activity. It is exempt from taxation by Congress or any other entity.

This material is objectionable for the obvious reasons: Unsourced, non-neutral, and definitely prohibited original research. This is frivolous tax protester rhetoric. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, Mr. Cryer is liable for large amounts of back taxes, penalties and interest. Acquittal in a criminal tax case does not relieve an individual from the tax liability. Yours, Famspear 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not engage in drive-by tagging

Dear new user Mpublius. Please stop adding the NPOV tag to this article. You only posted your first comments here a few mintues ago:

Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.[2]

Yours, Famspear 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.Mpublius 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: With all due respect, you are quite incorrect in saying that "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.' You have gotten 'way ahead of yourself. Adding an NPOV tag to an article merely because you personally believe the article is not neutral is improper. Here, there is no POV dispute. In order to have a dispute over POV, there must first be an actual written dispute on the talk page for the article. Under the rules of Wikipedia, tagging an article is a last resort, not a first resort. What you have attempted to do is to tag the article before a dispute even exists here in the talk page.

If you document your positions by discussing specifically what language in the article is not neutral AND other editors respond with their own discussions that disagree with your own views -- then and only then will you have a dispute. Further, the existence of such a dispute does not in and of itself justify a tag -- otherwise, almost any article could be tagged. If, after a reasonable length of time, a consensus of editors feels that a tag is appropriate, then placement of the tag might be appropriate.

Wikipedia works on a concept of consensus. That means that editors work together to improve the article. Placing a POV tag on the article merely because another editor reverted your own contribution, or merely because the article does not reflect your point of view, is not appropriate.

I would suggest that you yourself first remove the tag and then discuss your views about the neutrality of the language in the article here on the talk page with other editors. Perhaps we can reach a consensus about your proposed additions to the article. If you do not remove the tag promptly, then I or another editor will remove the tag. If you continue to re-insert the tag without working with other editors, then other editors may draw applicable conclusions.

Since your placement of the tag was improper, I cannot guarantee you that another editor will not remove it before you have a chance to remove it. You do, however, have this opportunity to address the concerns either way. Yours, Famspear 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: Dear Mpublius. By way of illustration, here is your very first contribution to the article (and I hope I got the chronology correct on all these edits):

[3]

Your edit – which contained no explanation in the edit summary and no citation as to source (although perhaps the links you provided at the bottom were intended to serve that purpose), was almost immediately reverted by another editor here:

[4]

That editor provided an explanation for the reversion, and asserted that the links you provided – apparently not as sourcing for your information, but rather as informational external links at the bottom of the page – did not meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Rather than responding with an explanation or disagreement or even mentioning “neutral point of view,” your next move was to add a POV tag:

[5]

I then came in and reverted your POV tag here:

[6]

At or about the same time I was removing the POV tag, this was your very first explanation (on the talk page, not in the edit summary for the article):

[7]

(Obviously, we were both working at almost the same time there, and probably missed each other’s edits until after they were completed.) Again, although this was your first explanation, you did not raise any specific issue about neutral point of view – you did not even mention the term.

You then added the POV tag back here:

[8]

I removed the POV tag with another caution here:

[9]

You again added the POV tag again, here:

[10]

You finally started talking about neutral point of view (sort of) here:

[11]

But your belated commentary about neutral point of view does not identify what language in the article you feel is not neutral. Instead, you are arguing for the retention of the NPOV tag you yourself placed in the article! Now you seem to be saying that although you have not identified any problem with neutral point of view, you insist the POV tag should remain until – when? Until the other editors have satisfied your desire for whatever language you want to add to the article? Famspear 04:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite many useful contributions that are neutral by several different editors, this topic remains a useless stub because you have censored all their contributions. Since you have a partisan axe to grind, you should include a link to a summary of your position, or create your own web page and include a link to it from Wikipedia. There is a great deal of missing information, such as a summary of the arguments in the charges of tax evasion and willful failure to file, briefs, and web sites of Cryer and the government.

The article also fails to mention that the government dropped the tax evasion charges two days before the jury deliberated, after issuing a press release announcing the charges. The government would not have issued the release unless they believed the case was important, so some people might reach the conclusion that they are essentially conceding the validity of Cryer's defense to those charges.

If you have useful information pertaining to this case, please add it to the article. But, do not censor the contributions of other editors merely because you believe the public should not be exposed to the controversy and might reach a different conclusion than yours. Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral resource, not a forum for the propaganda or censorship of partisans. It is the responsibility of readers to use the resources to reach their own conclusions and dismiss the validity of whatever material they find unpersuasive, but it is not role of the editors to be paternalist nannies.

Please consult the rules on neutral point of view, which state:

"The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

Obviously, there is no consensus. You have disagreed with every editor and prevented any value from being added to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) on 18 August 2007.

Dear Mpublius: Thank you for your comments.

I note that you have now added the POV tag back to the article, despite its removal by several editors.

Regarding your statement that I have censored many useful contributions by several different editors -- that statement is incorrect. I would suggest that you read or re-read the material on this talk page, and review the edits.

Your statement that I have "a partisan axe to grind" is a violation of the Wikipedia concept of assuming good faith. Please look at that policy, and comment on the text, not on the editor. In Wikipedia, it is inappropriate to attack other editors based on a disagreement about editing. By the way, your use of the term "partisan" would seem to imply that you perceive there is a debate with "two sides" here. If that is correct, you may want to be specific here in the talk page about what you mean.

Also, the comment that I should include a link to a summary of my position, or create my own web page and include a link to it from Wikipedia -- is also incorrect. That is not how Wikipedia works. I and the other editors are here to edit Wikipedia, following the concepts of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. And you have not identified the "position" that you feel I hold. The only thing we are here to discuss is article content -- and we have a place for that: this very discussion page.

Regarding your statement that there is a great deal of missing information -- that is basically correct. This is a new article. Wikipedia is a work in progress. That means that this article, like most new articles, can be expanded. I don't think you're telling experienced editors anything they don't already know.

You state that the article also fails to mention that the government dropped the tax evasion charges two days before the jury deliberated, after issuing a press release announcing the charges. Well, the article does indeed mention that the tax evasion charges were dropped. Perhaps you are saying that you believe the timing of the dropping of the charges is important. If you can verify the timing of the dropping of the charges and can persuade other editors that it is important to note that timing in the article, then go for it.

Regarding your statement that I should not "censor" the contributions of other editors merely because I believe the public should not be exposed to the "controversy" and might reach a different conclusion than my own -- to what "controversy" are you referring? And what are the different "conclusions" to which you are referring? Again, more than one editor has removed your edits -- which you added without explanation and without sourcing. That is not "censoring" in the sense in which I think you mean. You seem to be concluding that I or other editors are trying to censor you.

Neither I nor any other one editor has the ability to "censor" Wikipedia, as you will find if you edit here for an appreciable length of time. Wikipedia works on the concept of consensus -- editors working together.

Neither you nor I nor any other single editor, acting alone, can consistently write or edit in Wikipedia in the way we would write or edit in our own private weblogs or published articles (even assuming we have any such weblogs or published articles). It's a group effort. Again, I would encourage you to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can make significant contributions. Yours, Famspear 20:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion at wikipedia is verifiability please provide us some sources that meet wikipedia standards and that information will be incorporated into the article. If you could just give us a few sources to start with we can go from there. Tmtoulouse 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people should use search engines to conduct their own research. Wikipedia is not necessarily a time saver. As for assuming good faith, a review of the history of retractions of the basic facts over many months in this article indicates that bad faith is the order of the day.Mpublius 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person who wants to add material, if you are unwilling to provide valid sources for the material you want to add then their is not much to talk about and the NPOV tag should be removed. Tmtoulouse 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: I agree with editor Tmtoulouse. Again, I would encourage you to consider looking for reliable sources for material you would like to add for this article. I will continue to work on the article as well, and I have access to the actual court records on PACER. I just can't deal with it right at this moment. Yours, Famspear 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In July, Murftown added the true and neutral statement, "Most notably, Cryer claims that the income Tax in the United States does not apply to most citizens and most wages." He also included a link to Cryer's web site at The Lie Free Zone, where Cryer claims, "the constitution guarantees your and Tom's right to earn a living and to engage in any lawful occupation and the constitution prohibits taxing any fundamental right; and the constitution does not permit taxation of your or tom's wages, salaries and fees personally earned." A WorldNetDaily article at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855 also states, Cryer said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing." This is an accurate and unbiased summary of the brief Cryer used in his case at http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/thememorandum.pdf, which should be included in the article.Mpublius 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When looking at sources we are bound by WP:ATT, since Cryer's website is a primary source there is very little we can use it for. World net daily also fails because it has a well known extremist position and questionable fact checking. I can not open the pdf you linked to for some reason so I am not sure what it is. I will review Cryer's site and see if there is anything that can be pulled off it, in the mean time I suggest you help out by finding some good secondary sources that meet wikipedia guidelines that we can draw from. If you can find these sources you will have a much easier time inserting the information you would like to see in the article. Tmtoulouse 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'll be looking for other materials over the next few days as well. I'm kinda snowed under right now, but the official court record of course will be a good source. Yours, Famspear 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia. "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." You may believe WorldNetDaily is biased, but it accurately quoted Cryer, whose brief is at [12]. The only reliable source for a court case is the primary sources - the parties in the controversy.

Sugaki made the following true and unbiased statement that, "According to Cryer, the wages he earned were not income, but instead were an exchange of labor and energy for wages--and therefore did not fall under the definition of income." This should not have been censored. Mpublius 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: The quote to which you refer was I believe removed by me here: [13], and by various other editors at various times, I believe. The quote was removed by me for two reasons: First, it was unsourced. Second, the verbiage was not clear that Cryer did not actually make this argument to the jury in court.

Here's some background. One common tactic of tax protesters is to falsely claim that when a tax protester is acquitted in a criminal tax case (granted, a rare occurrence, but it does happen) that the tax protester was able to argue to the jury itself that, for example, "wages are not income." Cryer himself may be spreading this story now -- I'm not sure. What I am fairly confident of is that (1) Cryer did not actually make that argument to the jury, and (2) Cryer essentially admitted in an interview immediately after the trial that he put on what was essentially a Cheek defense and that he was not allowed to present his arguments about the tax law to the jury itself.

What Cryer was allowed to do, and what he admitted he was allowed to do, was to try to persuade the jury that his conduct was not willful through his own testimony -- essentially, that he had an actual good faith belief that he was not violating the law. The fact that he may be saying something else after his acquittal (if that's what he's doing), and the fact that he may have said something else before the trial (if that's what he did) are separate concepts.

The material to which you are referring could indeed be added back to the article if it is properly sourced and if the article is presented to as not to mislead the reader into thinking that Cryer's acquittal was based on some "ruling" by the jury that Cryer's view of the tax law was somehow correct. The jury made no such ruling, and indeed juries do not make rulings. (And Cryer is still liable for the taxes, penalties and interest.)

When you say that a statement Cryer is quoted as saying is "an accurate and unbiased summary of the brief Cryer used in his case", you are actually confirming my point. Cryer filed a written brief in the case. Written briefs are not presented to the jury. Briefs are submitted to the judge. The legal arguments presented in those briefs are then subject to a ruling by the judge. The judge in Cryer's case never ruled that Cryer's arguments about the tax law were correct. Indeed, if the judge had done so, the case would never have gone to the jury. The case would have been thrown out by the judge.

The brief is never seen by the jury. In Wikipedia, we do not want to leave the false impression that the reason for Cryer's acquittal by the jury was some argument in a legal brief that the jury never read.

Again the burden of proof here in Wikipedia is on the person inserting material into an article, not on the person challenging that insertion. The fact that Cryer's quotation is accurate (if such is the case) is not the only criterion we use. Verfiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research.

I suspect we can find a way to get the material back in the article. Again, due to workload I probably can't devote too much time on this until the weekend. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Problematic Language section, you asserted, "the jury decides fact issues, not points of law." This is false and shows a bias in favor of the government. For 800 years, since the Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of American and English constitutional law than that it is the right and duty of juries to decide fact and law. It is their primary duty to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that in their opinion are unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless or violating or resisting such laws.

The United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people do not exist to serve the government. The government exists to serve the people. For more info on how the justice system works in the U.S., see the [Fully Informed Jury Association] article. Since the government dropped the charges of tax evasion two days before the jury deliberated, the government is essentially conceding that they did not have enough evidence to make their case, or was convinced that a jury would invalidate the law, or interpret it in favor of Cryer.

In the O.J. Simpson case you referred to earlier, many people believe that the jury knew Simpson was guilty, but exonerated him because they wanted to send a message to a corrupt police to clean up the government. One of the lawyers who became prominent due to his work in that case, Barry Scheck, used his fame to start the [Innocence Project]. So, far Scheck has exonerated 200 people from death row using DNA evidence to prove their innocennce. Since DNA evidence is usually not available, the government has undoubtably murdered many other innocent people. Mpublius 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel or what you think about the jury nullification or any other such legal matters, this is not the place to discuss them. This talk page is for discussion and improvement of the article. So far you have brought up one quote about Cryer's beliefs regarding wage and income and sourced it to his website. I have attempted to insert it into the article in the first sentence. Does that sentence capture the point you want to make? What other elements do you want to see in the article in order to resolve this "NPOV dispute"? Tmtoulouse 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Thank you for sharing that with us. I'm sorry, but the statement that "the jury decides fact issues, not points of law" is a correct statement of what the law is, and does not show a "bias in favor of the government." It's not merely "the government's" position that the jury decides fact issues. It is a basic rule of law under the U.S. legal system -- and both prosecutors and defendants (in criminal cases) and plaintiffs and defendants (in civil cases) are bound by that rule.

And thanks for the news on that Magna Carta thing back in the year 1215. News travels slowly, and we just had no idea! Seriously, you are confusing (A) the legal concept that the jury is presented with only questions of fact (not questions of law), with (B) the criminal law concept of Jury nullification (which deals with how juries decide certain criminal cases once the jury deliberates a case).

Under the U.S. legal system questions of law, as defined by the court, are not generally presented to the jury. This is a complex subject, but I will try to simplify this -- at the risk of oversimplification. In a jury trial, the jury is known as "the trier of fact." The judge is called the "trier of law." This means, for example, that in a criminal Federal income tax case where the defendant argues that "wages are not taxable," the defendant will be allowed to argue that point only to the judge, not to the jury.

Under our legal system, some questions are called "mixed questions of law and fact." For example, in a tort case (a civil case involving, say, a request for a monetary recovery for personal injury damages or property damages), the question of whether the defendant was "negligent" is a mixed question, and is treated as a question of fact. If the tort case involves a jury, that means that the jury will decide that issue. The key point is that the question of whether the defendant was negligent will be presented to the jury for the jury to decide.

In a contract dispute, the question of whether the defendant actually took an ink pen into his hand and actually marked on a particular document with present intent to authenticate that document by writing his name on that document is probably a question of fact -- to be decided by the jury, if there is one in this civil case. Assuming there is a real dispute over whether the defendant actually did what was described, the jury may well be presented with that question and asked to decide it. By contrast, the question of whether that act, by that defendant, constituted the making of a something called a legal "signature" may be a question of law -- to be decided by the judge, not the jury. This latter question will probably not be presented to the jury.

In a Federal criminal tax case, the question of whether compensation for personal services is includible in gross income under 26 USC section 61 (essentially, whether wages or salaries, etc., are taxable) is a question of law. It is not a question of fact, and it is not a "mixed" question either. That question will not be presented to the jury.

The concept of jury nullification - which is close to what you are talking about - relates to what happens after the jury goes into chambers to deliberate and decide the case, not to the issue of whether a particular question (such as, are wages taxable?) will be presented to the jury prior to deliberations.

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that when the jury went in to deliberate in the Cryer case, they all sat down and said: "Hey, you know we realize that the judge has told us that wages are taxable, and we know this guy Cryer had wages or compensation income or whatever, and the evidence is just overwhelming against Cryer if you agree with the government's position, but hey we like this guy Cryer and we believe the theory that wages are not taxable, even though Cryer never argued that theory to us in court, and we the jury just disagree with the judge on what the law is, and, hey let's vote Cryer not guilty!" And everybody on the jury says "yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!" And they all vote a "not guilty" verdict. Cryer is acquitted, and the judge renders a judgment in favor of Cryer, and he goes home.

Assuming all that were to happen or did happen, that would probably be an example of jury nullification. That, however, does not mean that the jury was presented with or asked to decide the issue of whether wages are taxable. A not guilty verdict also is NOT a RULING by the jury that there is no law making wages taxable -- even if the jury strongly intended it to be. In fact, it's not a ruling at all. It's a verdict, and verdicts, unlike court rulings, have no precedential value - no value as a statement of "what the law is." Of course, the not guilty verdict is valuable to Tommy Cryer, as it resulted in a court judgment in his favor. He was not convicted. He got to go home.

Now, if every jury in every criminal tax case did that, it would arguably create problems, at least in the eyes of top IRS and Department of Justice officials. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, the conviction rate in Federal criminal tax cases is actually pretty high (above 80% if I recall correctly).

Now regarding this verbiage:

United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people do not exist to serve the government. The government exists to serve the people. For more info on how the justice system works in the U.S., see the Fully Informed Jury Association article.

Again, thanks for educating the rest of us here in Wikipedia on the basic principles of the American system. We had no idea. I guess that "Fully Informed Jury Association" article will have all kinds of new information for us on how the justice system works. Why didn't we learn about it before? How could we have been so blind? Why don't you send everyone in the country a copy?

If you want to be taken seriously in Wikipedia, you should consider slowing down, taking a deep breath, and thinking more carefully about what you write. Just my opinion. Yours, Famspear 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: By the way, please don't take my sarcasm and critique too personally. I am grumpy today. Also, editor Tmtoulouse is more on point than I am -- by asking for your opinion about what other elements you want or believe should be the article in order to resolve the "NPOV dispute". I know that your earlier point about the need to expand the article is valid, and I would like to second Tmtoulouse's request for your further ideas. Yours, the Grumpy One Famspear 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is missing vital information because it omits why Crier claims most wages are not taxable. Cryer believes wages are a trade of valuable time in exchange for money, and is thus not taxable because it fails to meet the definition of income – an increase of wealth.

The sentence also falsely states that Cryer is a tax protester. Cryer has stated that he will pay income taxes when the government shows that he owes taxes, so he is not protesting. On the contrary, Cryer has been directly quoted as referring to tax protesters as charletons. Crier and the government merely have a disagreement about the interpretation of the law, and so far Crier has prevailed. Theoretically, the government could still prove that Crier is a protester, but they dropped the tax evasion charges two days before the jury deliberated and missed their opportunity. The government had 10 years to make their case, so we should assume that Crier has a better understanding of the law, rather than grant infinite time to the government. We can revise the article accordingly if and when the government shows the need. The article should also devote a sentence or two to summarize why the government believes wages are taxable. Mpublius 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Based on your ideas, I think we can make some good progress. Here are some of my thoughts.

In my view, whatever the article should say about Cryer's arguments, the article should clearly distinguish between and among (1) arguments Cryer made outside of court, (2) arguments Cryer made in his legal brief, which as far as we know was read only by the judge, not by the jury, and (3) arguments Cryer made to the jury itself - such as, about Cryer's lack of willfulness. In other words, the article should not leave the false impression that a particular argument made, say, in his legal brief was made to the jury. We do not want to leave the false impression that the jury "ruled" that Cryer's "legal" theories were correct, and we do not want to leave the false impression that a jury can render "rulings" on questions of law.

Next, the government does not need to "prove" that Cryer is a tax protester, and neither does Wikipedia. Indeed, most tax protesters never argue their points in a court of law. A person who raises tax protester arguments (also known, in legal terminology, as legally frivolous arguments) is a tax protester, regardless of whether that person raises those arguments only on a tax return, or only on the internet, or only in a coffee shop with friends, or only in a court of law. I do agree with you that the article could contain a properly sourced statement from Cryer where he asserts that he is not a "tax protester" -- as long as that is balanced by mentioning the arguments in his legal brief that are in fact tax protester arguments. That may be easy to do, since he appears to be espousing at least one argument that has already been rejected as being a "tax protester" argument, or as "frivolous". Neutral point of view requires that we show both sides, not just Cryer's side. And, by the way, I believe I may have a copy of Cryer's brief (it's a matter of public record), so it may be easy to show that he is espousing tax protester arguments, regardless of the fact that he claims not to be one.

Regarding your statement that "The government had 10 years to make their case, so we should assume that Crier has a better understanding of the law, rather than grant infinite time to the government", I respectfully disagree, for the reasons already cited. Under your argument, every time someone is acquitted in a criminal case (murder, theft, tax, whatever) that would mean that the defendant somehow had a "better understanding of the law" than the government -- a scenario that is almost always false. Obtaining an acquittal is not necessarily or merely about how well the defendant knows the law.

On your comment that the article "should also devote a sentence or two to summarize why the government believes wages are taxable", I agree except that it's not a question of what the "government believes." The law is well settled that wages are taxable. There is no valid argument otherwise, from a legal standpoint. The citations to the case law, from the Supreme Court on down, can indeed be added to article. We already have gazillions of court rulings on that. Further, no Federal court has ever ruled that wages are not taxable. Not one. Not ever. The Federal courts have rejected Cryer's "wages" argument every single time it has been raised.

Assuming we can document that Cryer has actually made the argument that "wages are not taxable because wages are a trade, etc., etc., regarding increase in wealth, then the article should also be clear that no court --in the Cryer case or any other case -- has ever ruled that argument to have any legal merit, AND the article should also cite the cases where the courts have specifically ruled against that argument. (By the way, I have the citations.)

Does anyone else have any thoughts? Yours, Famspear 16:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a better discussion of what Cryer says will be needed, and Famspear is right, the only source I have really found on the case at Union Leader [14] states pretty clearly that the argument Cryer put before the jury was one of "I didn't think I was liable" and so was not "willful" certainly very different from saying "I am not liable" as he is want to do on his own website. I think it is fairly clear that Cryer is a tax protester, I don't understand why you think he is not so I don't think that will get changed anytime soon. Since I do not have access to the court documents, and have very little to work with as far as sources I am inclined to put a few more sentences in based on Cryer's website and the union leader source and then wait and see what else we can dig up. Tmtoulouse 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to editor Tmtoulouse for those comments. As a follow-up, while other editors are studying this, I would note that for purposes of the Wikipedia article, any mention of Cryer's tax protester arguments in his legal brief should be accompanied by the information that the court in the Cryer case rejected those arguments, if such is the case. That is, a defendant's purpose in filing such a brief is to get a criminal case thrown out, so that the jury doesn't get to deliberate and render a verdict. Instead, the court ruled against Cryer on the legal issues, and the case went to the jury -- where the jury verdict was "not guilty."

On the "wages" argument, the ironic thing is that although many tax protesters falsely cite jury acquittals in criminal tax cases as being "rulings" that wages are not taxable, etc., those cases where defendants make those kinds of arguments to the judges (i.e., prior to jury deliberation) either orally or in writing -- in an attempt to get the judges to throw the cases out -- are actually examples where the courts have ruled the "wages argument" to be invalid -- a legal point that sails right over the heads of nearly all protesters. Famspear 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the input from this page I have tried to incorporate as much as I could with as little sources as we have. Famspear, could you find a good source for the rejection of Cryer's argument for me? I am not sure the best place to look. Thanks! And Mpublius how are we doing on the NPOV dispute? Tmtoulouse 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have added citations to some of the cases on taxation of wages, salaries, etc., as well as a direct quote from Cryer on his own argument, and from the New Hampshire newspaper cited by editor Tmtoulouse, on what happened at the trial. As time permits, I'll look at the brief Cryer filed in the case and confirm (if applicable) that the court actually rejected his "wages" argument, and add that to the article as well. Yours, Famspear 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: By the way, since Cryer was charged in a Federal court in Louisiana, the precedent that is most directly on point for him includes the Parker case (Fifth Circuit, which consists of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) cited in the article -- where the "wages are not taxable" argument was ruled to be legally frivolous. Even if none of the other cited cases existed, the Parker case killed Cryer on the legal issue of taxability of wages. And unfortunately that means that Cryer still owes the taxes, penalties and interest for the years for which he was acquitted -- which means that that at some point the IRS can administratively seize Cryer's assets, in most instances without even having to go to court. Famspear 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In one of the cases now cited in the article, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a judgment of the United States Tax Court in which the Tax Court made a finding that "petitioner [Kenneth Waters, the taxpayer] is yet another in a seemingly unending parade of tax protesters bent on glutting the docket of this Court and others with frivolous and groundless claims . . . and he has instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay." The Court of Appeals stated: "As detailed in the Tax Court opinion in this case, it is clear beyond peradventure that the law is well established and long settled that wages are includable in taxable income." Waters v. Commissioner, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9512 (11th Cir. 1985). Yours, Famspear 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to disseminate a neutral point of view, not to advertise government propaganda. This article reads like something from George Orwell's '1984' book. A person is not a “tax protester” merely because he disagrees with the government about the interpretation of law. The article should also conform to Wikipedia standards for biographies of living persons. It is libelous to refer to Cryer as a “tax protester” because he has not exercised his First Amendment right to protest or petition the government for redress of grievances. And, he has stated that he willingly will pay all the taxes he owes, if any.

Cryer has not advocated the repeal or enactment of any law. On the contrary, the government is the “tax protester” that has protested Cryer's refusal to pay income taxes that the government claims Cryer owes, and the government has petitioned the judiciary for a redress of grievances. The judiciary acquitted Cryer of all charges. Unsurprisingly, Cryer has no grievance to protest, although he could be annoyed that the government forced him to write a 100 page defense of his position.

Cryer's arguments should not be dismissed as “frivolous” because he has prevailed over the government. Cryer and the government have no disagreement about the facts of his activities, and the government dropped the tax evasion charges. If Cryer had made “frivolous” arguments, the government would have proceeded with their case, and the jury found Cryer guilty, and assessed extra penalties upon Cryer for wasting the court's time. None of this happened! A man should be presumed innocent until proven guilty!

The Union Leader article is a biased source because it links Cryer to a violent man who believes a crazy conspiracy theory about Freemasons running the country. Instead, the unbiased Shreveport newspaper article or the WorldNetDaily article should be linked.

The article states, “the argument that wages and other compensation amounts are not taxable has been routinely rejected by courts as frivolous.” This contradicts the earlier statement that Cryer believes “most wages” are not taxable. It also misrepresents Cryer's position, as stated in his memorandum, that all wages and compensation are taxable that conform to the definition of an excise tax.

Is it really true that the government tried Cryer for willful failure to file without permission from the grand jury? If false, the statement should be removed from the article. If true, the article should state that a grand jury indictment is a lawful requirement for a criminal charge, and the government flouted the law. Grand juries exist to prevent government from harassing innocent citizens with baseless charges. Mpublius 14:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read through wikiepedia policy on undue weight. The arguments that Cryer and other tax protesters put forward count as a minority position, there for their arguments are not required to be given equal weight according to standard wikipedia policy. Tom Cryer believes that the income tax as understood by the vast majority of the American people, the court system and all enforcing and administrative bodies is a conspiracy and a lie. He then advocates not paying taxes and has refused to do so himself. That makes him a tax protester according to common parlance.

Cryer didn't win based on his "arguments" about taxes, but because he claimed he didn't have criminal intent. The frivolous nature of his claims is demonstrated by the cited court material.

The Union leader is a standard media outlet, and acceptable to wikipedia, regardless of whether it links Cryer and Ed Brown. Tmtoulouse 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Well, there is no "government propaganda" in the article as currently written. (I hope you don't consider actual court rulings to be government propaganda!) The article does accurately report on the holdings in numerous court cases -- where by definition both the government and the taxpayer have an opportunity to argue their positions, after which a judge makes a ruling.

Neutral point of view includes reporting both sides of an issue without taking sides. The article presents a quotation of Mr. Cryer's position, and also reports what the courts have ruled on Cryer's argument. The article does not state that Mr. Cryer is "correct", and the article does not state that the courts are "correct." In my personal opinion, your comparison of this article to George Orwell's "1984" book is way over the top. It does almost sound like you are trying to argue that Cryer's theories should be given equal weight with the court rulings. That would violate Wikipedia policy, as Cryer's positions (at least all those you have cited) are legally frivolous and, indeed, represent extreme fringe positions. In Wikipedia, "not taking sides" definitely does not mean straining to give equal weight to all positions.

I'm not sure why you are contending that it is somehow "libelous" to refer to Cryer as a “tax protester” merely because Cryer "has not exercised his First Amendment right to protest or petition the government for redress of grievances." Exercising that First Amendment right, etc., etc., is not a "requirement" before someone can be denominated a "tax protester."

The Wikipedia article itself does not dismiss Cryer's arguments as being "frivolous." If anything, the article is giving Cryer a break by not reporting that the court in Cryer's own case rejected every one of his arguments about how the tax law works. Had the court not rejected Cryer's arguments, the jury would never have had a chance to deliberate and find Cryer not guilty!

The article does list cases where the courts have ruled the "wages are not taxable" argument as being legally frivolous. The "wages are not taxable" argument is essentially Cryer's argument as well, and you are not going to get around that by saying Cryer uses the language "most wages" (instead of, say, "all wages"). Other tax protesters have also made the argument that "some wages" may be taxable, but not all wages. If there is something inaccurate in the article about the description of Mr. Cryer's position, however, please bring that to our attention.

Regarding your statement that the "Union Leader article is a biased source because it links Cryer to a violent man who believes a crazy conspiracy theory about Freemasons running the country" -- there are two problems with your argument. First, assuming for the sake of argument that the Union Leader story is "biased" (which is your view, not mine), that point is not a valid objection here in Wikipedia. Neutral point of view does not require that the cited sources be "unbiased" -- indeed, neutral point of view requires that we present both sides. That means, by definition, that various sources for one side or another can and sometimes will be biased one way or another.

By contrast, the Wikipedia rule of Verifiability requires that the source material actually stand for the proposition for which the Wikipedia article is citing that source. That means that in Wikipedia you cannot cite a New York Times article for the statement that "Neptune is bigger than the Sun" unless the Times article says that Neptune is bigger than the Sun. The fact that the Times article might be wrong about the size of Neptune, or the fact that the Times might be biased because its editors just like Neptune a lot and hate the Sun a whole lot, are not necessarily going to disqualify the Times article as a source for that statement.

Regarding this veribiage:

Is it really true that the government tried Cryer for willful failure to file without permission from the grand jury? If false, the statement should be removed from the article.

I'm not sure I follow you here (maybe I missed something in the article??). What language in the article are you referring to? I believe the article says that Cryer was indicted. Nowhere does it say that he was charged "without permission from the grand jury". Please explain. Yours, Famspear 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: On another point, I have changed the verbiage in the article regarding the charges against Cryer from having been made by the "grand jury" to having been made by the "indictment." Although the court documents show the heading "indictment," it's unclear whether these were really grand jury indictments or, alternatively charges by "information" filed by the prosecutors. I'm working to try to clarify this point. (In some cases, you can be charged either by a grand jury "indictment" or, alternatively, by a document called an "information" that is filed by the prosecutor.) Famspear 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Oh, the other point I wanted to make about your statement -- that the "Union Leader article is a biased source because it links Cryer to a violent man who believes a crazy conspiracy theory about Freemasons running the country" -- is this. Even if that alleged "linkage" by the Union Leader somehow showed some sort of "bias" on the part of the Union Leader (a proposition I personally find rather dubious), that would not be material to the Wikipedia article on Mr. Cryer for still another reason: namely, that the Wikipedia article itself is not linking Mr. Cryer to the "violent man who believes a crazy conspiracy theory", etc. The Wikipedia article on Mr. Cryer does not even mention the other guy.

Further, even if the Wikipedia article on Cryer did mention the other guy, that would not necessarily mean that the article on Cryer lacks a neutral point of view. Yours, Famspear 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not making any progress because we're focusing on too many issues. Let's start by resolving the neutrality dispute. Afterwards, we can make the article more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) 14:50, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a prohibition on the use of the term "illegal tax protester" by officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service. The prohibition stemmed from complaints about the excessive use of the term not only to describe persons who raised frivolous theories, but against any persons who protested the amount of their tax assessment. Specifically, section 3707 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 states that IRS personnel: (1) shall not designate taxpayers as illegal tax protesters (or any similar designation); and (2) in the case of any such designation made on or before the date of the enactment of this Act [i.e., made on or before July 22, 1998]-- (A) shall remove such designation from the individual master file; and (B) shall disregard any such designation not located in the individual master file."

For the same reasons, an unbiased article conforming to Wikipedia guidelines for neutral point of view must omit "tax protester" and other similar derogatory designations. As the government stated in the press release announcing the trial, guilt has not been proven.Mpublius 14:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: I'm sorry, but this issue has already been hashed out numerous times in Wikipedia. Neutral point of view does not require that Wikipedia omit the use of the term "tax protester," any more than the '98 Act requires the omission of the use of that term in court cases. You copied and pasted that accurate material from another Wikipedia article. Read it carefully. It essentially says that IRS personnel cannot use the "tax protester" designation in certain internal IRS documents. It says nothing about the use of that term in courts of law, or in Wikipedia. The term "tax protester" is a legal term used in court all the time. The fact that Cryer has promulgated tax protester arguments is undisputed -- unless you want to dispute that right now. Do you want to dispute that? Famspear 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Also, regarding your comment on the use of the term "tax protester" and your statement that Cryer's "guilt has not been proven" -- I think you're missing the point. Cryer was not charged with being a tax protester. Merely being a tax protester is not a crime, and there is no such thing as someone being found guilty -- or not guilty -- of being a tax protester. Being found not guilty of willful failure to file a tax return is not a determination by the jury or by the judge that Cryer is not a tax protester. Regarding your comments that "[w]e're not making any progress because we're focusing on too many issues" and "[l]et's start by resolving the neutrality dispute" -- I don't think we're focusing on too many issues. We're responding to your comments, and we're editing the article. And we've already "started" that process. We are in that process right now. Yours, Famspear 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Also, I notice that you deleted the entire section showing how the courts have ruled on Cryer's argument about wages. Neutral point of view does require that we show both sides. If you want to document the fact that Cryer has argued that wages are not taxable, you also should document what the courts have ruled on that topic. I have re-added the material. Yours, Famspear 15:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have now added some direct quotations from one of Cryer's memoranda filed with the court, showing some of the tax protester arguments he made. I have also added a citation to the court order rejecting Cryer's arguments. I am still looking at the court documents; he made several motions, all of which were denied by the Court. More information on the tax protester arguments he made in court can be added later. Yours, Famspear 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

what relevance does this document have on the issue of income tax? http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/History/Congress/1909-16thAmendCongrRecord.pdf scroll all the way down to Taft's letter to congress calling for an "income" tax? Is this generaly known about, because it seems to blow the lid off of the notion that the tax was intended to tax "you and me". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftingbythestorm (talk • contribs) 04:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The Congressional Record is not a reliable source; any member of (that house of) Congress can edit it, except for actual bill text. Even if the scan is accurate, it doesn't prove anything.— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to famguardian.org is a link to a tax protester web site. The material purports to be information relating to the debates prior to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. Assuming that the material is genuine, it doesn't "blow the lid off" anything. And it's old, old stuff. The meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is well-settled as a matter of law. Under our legal system, the courts decide these kinds of things. In this particular case, the case law is overwhelming. In fact, some of the case law is now referenced in the Tom Cryer article. Every single time a tax protester has argued in court that the income tax was not intended to tax "you and me," that tax protester has lost on that particular point. Every single time. No exceptions. Famspear 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Precise name?

Many of the legal documents I have seen in this case and also what appears to be a resume or bio published by Mr. Cryer on the internet show his name as "Tommy K. Cryer," not "Tom Cryer." Should the article be renamed, or just change the text, or should anything be changed? Famspear 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cryer's memorandum refers to himself as Tommy K. Cryer, but it would be best to omit the middle initial.Mpublius 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to best put this, but i see a lot of back and forth related to what was and wasn't said in trial, and resultant paraphrasing and arguments about such. THE TRANSCRIPTS ARE NOW AVAILABLE, freed by the truthattack folks ... available here in pdf: http://truthattack.org/downloads.html

folks, please read these before arguing any further about what was and wasn't said in court. thank you. -dbts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftingbythestorm (talk • contribs) (on 26 August 2007).

Dear dbts: Thanks for the link. The website in question, truthattack.org, may or may not be reliable for determining what was said in court.

By contrast, the quotations in the Wikipedia article are verbatim from the official court documents -- obtained from the official website for the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Shreveport. For purposes of Wikipedia, the official court web site will generally be considered more reliable that "truthattack.org".

However, Some but not all documents in the official Court record are linked (with PDF copies available). The last time I looked, the transcript to which you refer were not available on the Court's web site. Therefore, we hope that the transcript as posted on truthattack.org (broken down into four PDF files) will turn out to be an accurate copy that we can use. I am looking at the transcript now. Cryer's testimony begins in volume 3 of the four-volume transcript.

You just need to be careful when looking a materials from tax protester web sites. There are many instances of faked quotations in tax protester materials, where the web sites say "the court said this "quote" -- and the "direct quote" turns out to be a fake. The copies of the Cryer transcripts at "truthattack.org" might be perfectly OK, though. We'll see. Yours, Famspear 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I started reading the trial transcript, but it's long and I haven't had a lot of time to deal with it yet. To be continued.... Famspear 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Libelous Statements

Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to neutrality, particularly if it is contentious. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Caution should be used in adding claims that suggest the person has a poor reputation.

The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.

For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified.

Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

“I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.”

There is no third party source for the defamatory claim that Cryer is a tax protester. The government press release announcing the case does not engage in derogatory schoolyard name-calling. On the contrary, it stresses that Cryer is innocent until proven guilty. Mpublius 14:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If he weren't a tax protester, he wouldn't be notable. So, you would rather delete the article or have the accurate statement there. For what it's worth, the IRS is forbidden from using the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would quatloos be an adequate source? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a reference on quatloos other than user posts, but he is mentioned as proposing tax protester arguments at the Tax Protester FAQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) on 26 August 2007.

The Dan Evans Tax Protester FAQ is a reliable source in my view. Famspear 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Dear Mpublius: Referring to an individual -- who has verifiably made tax protester arguments in his own paperwork actually filed in a Federal court case, including verbatim quotations from that paperwork and a citation to the docket entry number and date, along with citation to the docket entry and date, etc., for the court's ruling rejecting those arguments -- as a tax protester in my view constitutes neither "defamation" nor "derogatory schoolyard name-calling," and I respectfully suggest that your argument to the contrary overstates the case.

As previously explained, the term "tax protester" does indeed have negative connotations. Nobody is disagreeing with that point. I argue, however, that the mere fact that a term has negative connotations does not necessarily mean that, in Wikipedia, an article using that term in a verifiable way violates the Wikipedia rule about Neutral Point of View, or the rules on biographies of living persons.

To use an obvious example, the term "Nazi" also has a very strong negative connotation in the minds of many people. An article on Reinhard Heydrich can nevertheless mention that he was a Nazi without violating the rules. Was Heydrich a Nazi? Can that assertion be sourced through citation to previously published, reliable third party sources? The answer to both questions is yes.

In this case, we have not only a citation to the web site for Daniel Evans, a tax attorney and publisher of what is undoubtedly one of the world's most comprehensive web sites listing specific tax protester arguments and specific citations to court cases on those arguments (a web site that specifically mentions Tom Cryer), we also have verbatim quotations from Cryer's own memorandum filed with the Court in the very case that is the subject of this article. Yours, Famspear 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the role of Wikipedia editors to brand Evans as a charleton or an authoritative source. Regardless of what Evans may believe, it's a basic principle of U.S. justice that Cryer is innocent until proven guilty of being a tax protester. Unbiased editors do not pass off opinions as fact. Mpublius 09:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester is not a legal term, so no one is "guilty" of being a tax protester. It is a pejorative term, but I would be very suprised if it wasn't used in local news coverage, as well as in reliable sources such as Dan Evans or Quatloos (not the message boards, the actual commentary by the site owner). But even if Dan Evans weren't a reliable source, it wouldn't be libelous, as, in the real world, we are allowed to derive from the clearly true statement that Cryer made tax protester arguments that he is a tax protester. In this context, using the word "libelous" may be a libelous comment, itself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: I would put it this way. The term "tax protester" actually IS a legal term -- a term used by Federal courts since the mid-1970s in a very particularized way in formal, reported court decisions. But, as editor Arthur Rubin has stated, no one is "guilty" of being a "tax protester" -- it's not a crime merely to be a "tax protester". Tax evasion is a crime. Willful failure to timely pay tax is a crime, Willful failure to timely file a tax return is a crime. And so on.

Again, as editor Arthur Rubin has noted, the mere fact that a term is pejorative does not mean that its use is prohibited in Wikipedia. See my reference to the use of the word "Nazi." Review the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if a person raises a tax protester argument on a filed tax return, or in a court case, there are indeed rules against that -- for which monetary penalties or fines, etc., can be imposed. That is different from saying that a person has been found "guilty" in a criminal case of merely being a tax protester. With respect to Federal taxes, there is no legal procedure under current U.S. law for finding a person "guilty" of merely being a "tax protester." Yours, Famspear 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that Tom Cryer and the anon are wrong about tax law, that question is not before us in this article. The question is, what do reliable sources say about him (and to some extent, what does he say about himself.) As I don't know which tax protester argument you are implying to be valid, I can't provide a refutation, but suffice it to say that it's wrong. As for Famspear's expertise—it's not relevant, unless you want to assert a WP:COI violation, I don't think you'll find one, but that's the only part of that arguement which is relevant to Wikipedia policies, at least in regard this article. Your arguments, although still wrong in fact, might apply to his edits of Income tax or of Income tax in the United States, but not here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go a step further. For purposes of Wikipedia, having expertise in a particular area does not disqualify an editor from editing in that area -- just as NOT having expertise in that area does not disqualify an individual from editing in that area. A person with a Ph.D. in physics may edit an article on the special theory of relativity, as may a person without even a high school diploma. Similarly, on the "conflict of interest" point, the mere fact that a person has expertise in a particular field does not constitute a "conflict of interest" in editing Wikipedia articles on that field. Similarly, being licensed -- or even employed -- as an attorney or accountant does not constitute a conflict of interest with respect to editing articles on accounting or taxation or law in general, any more than a medical doctor who makes a living as a medical doctor would be prohibited, on that basis, from editing articles on health matters. Yours, Famspear 15:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting page protection to get your own way?

Dear Mpublius: Requesting page protection as you did here:

[15]

--might not be an appropriate method to handle a content dispute. Yours, Famspear 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius, as you may have noticed, your request for page protection was denied here: [16]

I do believe all of us can continue to work together for consensus on this article. Yours, Famspear 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Various changes were reverted

An anonymous editor made a lot of changes with quite a few errors. I was making a few corrections, but I notice that editor Arthur Rubin has reverted to a prior version anyway. That may be the better approach. These proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page, anyway, in my opinion, as they included numerous errors on dates and terminology (e.g., referring to the indictment as a "subpoena," referring to the charging agency as the IRS instead of the grand jury, referring to the trial jury as the grand jury, referring to the tax evasion charges as having been dropped "by the grand jury" (they were dropped by the prosecutor), having the wrong date on the dropping of the evasion charges, and so on. Also, there was some POVish material included as well. Famspear 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please edit dates and terminology freely. Please cite POVish content so we can discuss alternatives. I specifically aimed to trim out all contentious POV oriented material out of the article, and to simply present the facts of the situation in an easy to follow, logical, and un-biased manner. The current un-edited version commands attention to specific ideas and phrases secondary or tertiary to the core subject material. ~ Synaptic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk • contribs)

Submission of Revised Version

I am submitting a revised version to the main page again. The current Arthur Rubin undo is unacceptably flagrant in deposing Tom Cryer, and the syntactic and organizational quality of the article is unacceptably low. Unless explicitly reasoned why the new edit is untenable, please work to revise the new format with proper dates, terminology, and sources.

"Tom Cryer and the tax protester movement generally, use the U.S. Constitution as presently amended, as a legal precedent when interpreting the contents of the Internal Revenue Code." is a phrase that could be considered to need a citation, but as common knowledge to anyone vaugely familiar with the subject, it might not require one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely unacceptable. "Thomas Cryer vs. the I.R.S." is wrong. It's the US Government that's prosecuting Cryer. He IS a tax protester, and we have a WP:RS to that. Please make only a few incremental changes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that the consensus version be trimmed of the dozen or so court cases. I think one or two should be adequate, but I can't really select the best ones. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that the consensus version be trimmed of the dozen or so court cases. I think one or two should be adequate, but I can't really select the best ones. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then reverse the subject order. It's not an NPOV issue, it is a syntactic issue. Due to the epithetical nature of the phrase "tax protester," mention of his status as a "tax protester" should be removed from such an explicit and vulgarly connotative (read: biased) display in the opening paragraph. I had attempted to classify his arguments as "tax protester" oriented thinking in a subsection abut his views, and if a mention is to be made of that label, I believe it should be there.

It should also be noted that Tom Cryer would NOT identify himself as a tax protester, because in his defense he makes it clear that he in good faith believes to be following the letter of the law, and is therefore simply a law abiding citizen. "Protest" is willful defiance of a thing, irrespective of reasoning based on law. It would therefore be a mis-nomer to classify him as such if his arguments were to prove valid, which they have not been proven invalid, as evidenced by this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk • contribs)

The IRS is not involved in the case, it's the US government represented by the Department of Justice. And tax protester should be in the lead, but perhaps specifically sourced to the reliable Dan Evans. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A good number of tax protesters believe their arguments, no matter how objectively erroneous they may be. See our article for our definition of the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Evans is a bigot. He stands firmly against any debate whatsoever about the legality of the income tax. As sourced, one is led to believe that "tax protester" is synonymous to someone "kooky" or of unsound mind or character. It is therefore libel as sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk) 18:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removal of this last comment under WP:BLP. I don't want to do it, myself, as a contributor to the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." ~ WP:BLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk) 18:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Cryer is publicly referred to as a tax protester, by Dan Evans, and in one of the newspaper articles. (The IRS is not allowed to refer to an individual as a tax protester, as has been noted many times before, but they are allowed to refer to frivolous arguments.) On the other hand, referring to Dan Evans as a bigot is libelous. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP66.90.247.77: It appears you have already reverted on this article four times in less than 24 hours, and you have been warned on your talk page. Your arguments that the term "tax protester" cannot be used in this article have been unpersuasive. I still believe we can work together to improve the aricle. Yours, Famspear 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed court cases

I trimmed the following court cases as "piling on", although perhaps Parker should be put back as a 5th Circuit source.

The courts have consistently rejected arguments that wages are not taxed under the Internal Revenue Code:

• United States v. Connor^[1] (tax evasion conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer’s argument -- that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable -- was rejected by the Court; taxpayer’s argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected);

• Parker v. Commissioner^[2] (taxpayer's argument -- that wages are not taxable -- was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; taxpayer charged double costs for filing a frivolous appeal);

• Perkins v. Commissioner^[3] (26 U.S.C. § 61 ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be “in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states”; taxpayer’s argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous);

• Sisemore v. United States^[4] (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Federal district court properly dismissed taxpayer’s frivolous lawsuit based on taxpayer’s tax return position that wages do not represent a taxable gain because wages are a source of income and are received in equal exchange for labor);

• White v. United States^[5] (taxpayer’s argument that wages are not taxable was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; penalty -- imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing tax return with frivolous position -- was therefore proper);

• Granzow v. Commissioner^[6] (taxpayer’s argument that wages are not taxable was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ruled frivolous);
• Waters v. Commissioner^[7] (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a judgment of the United States Tax Court in which the Tax Court made a finding that "petitioner [Kenneth Waters, the taxpayer] is yet another in a seemingly unending parade of tax protesters bent on glutting the docket of this Court and others with frivolous and groundless claims . . . and he has instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay." The Court of Appeals stated: "As detailed in the Tax Court opinion in this case, it is clear beyond peradventure that the law is well established and long settled that wages are includable in taxable income." Taxpayer’s argument that income taxation of wages is unconstitutional was rejected by the Court of Appeals; taxpayer required to pay damages for filing frivolous suit).

Notes

Yeah, how about just the Parker case and the Waters case? Famspear 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we still have citations to other cases in the article. Maybe we don't even need to have Parker or Waters (?). I'm the one who added all these cases to begin with, and I would agree with editor Arthur Rubin - you could just leave the deleted cases out, at least for now. Yours, Famspear 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of Mpublius

Dear Mpublius: It appears from your continued activity on this article that you object to almost any use of the term "tax protester," that you are repeatedly removing any reference to the term "tax protester" in this article, and that you are working against Wikipedia consensus. The reason for the use of the term has been thoroughly explained on this talk page. At this point, your behavior appears to be POV pushing. Other editors may treat POV pushing as a form of vandalism. Please refrain from repeatedly reverting other editors. Yours, Famspear 16:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interest that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable", putting Tax_protester in the intro is like putting "he does not beat his wife" there. Although true, its guilt through association. Just let the facts speak for themselves. If people cannot part with this bias, then add a See Also section. N0 D1C4 17:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is a WP:RS that calls him a tax protester, for the statement to fail NPOV, there would need to be some source (other than himself) that states he is not a tax protester. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not arguing whether or not he is or is not a tax_protester. The facts can speak for themselves.

Second, reliable sources or not, this is insinuation; a violation of NPOV.

Third, Wikipedia frowns on categorizing a person as this or that; this is a violation of NPOV.

Lastly, everyone should limit their personal bias to their talk page.N0 D1C4 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I object only to "tax protester" used as an epithet applied to someone who does not protest taxes. I approve of "tax protester" as applied to someone who protests a tax. Mpublius 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear N0 D1C4: And if there is a reliable source that says that Cryer is not a tax protester, that could be added to the article.

The basic problem with the behavior of Mpublius is that he/she is simply reverting all use of the term "tax protester" anywhere in the article in spite of consensus to the contrary, and is using what now appear to be various pretexts (its use is "libel" or not "neutral") for what appears to be, in reality, POV pushing. This behavior may now be bleeding over into another article.

Regarding the statement by Mpublius that he/she objects "only to 'tax protester' used as an epithet applied to someone who does not protest taxes and the statement that he/she approves "of 'tax protester' as applied to someone who protests a tax" -- that is not an acceptable set of criteria. Again, Wikipedia uses the term "tax protester" in these articles in the legal sense in which the term is used in reported, published decisions by Federal courts in actual tax cases, both civil and criminal. I don't think Wikipedia editors are going to throw out the legal meaning of the term and substitute this narrow, circular definition of "tax protester" as supplied to us by Mpublius, merely because Mpublius recognizes (as we all do) the negative connotation of the term. Indeed, using Mpublius' own personal definition would arguably exclude almost everyone who has ever been described as a tax protester in Federal courts. Tom Cryer is an example of the very essence of a tax protester as that term is used in the legal sense. Cryer's arguments have been designated as tax protester arguments over and over in Federal courts. And Cryer himself has been designated a "tax protester" by at least one reliable, previously published third party source.

Mpublius does not seem to be denying that Cryer has raised tax protester arguments (in this case, in open court in Cryer's own criminal trial). What Mpublius seems to be doing for whatever reason is trying to eliminate the use of the term itself in the Cryer article in Wikipedia -- by raiseing a variety of objections or arguments such as (essentially) "let's redefine the term so that Cryer isn't a tax protester," or let's delete it because it's an "epithet" (negative connotation) and so on. I don't think these kinds of arguments work.

By the way, I thought there was a statement by Cryer himself somewhere that he is not a tax protester, or words to that effect. Perhaps we can find that quote and, if the source is reliable, etc., add the quote to the article to satisfy the neutrality argument raised by Mpublius. That way, the article can mention (1) Mr. Evans' designation of Mr. Cryer as a tax protester, and (2) Mr. Cryer's own position that Cryer is not a tax protester, and (3) Mr. Cryer's tax protester arguments from his own brief filed with the court, and (4) the court rulings in other cases to the effect that one or more of Cryer's arguments are indeed tax protester arguments. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert War

I have made a preemptive first strike to prevent the onslaught that happened here Edward_Lewis_Brown. PLEASE LEAVE IT ALONE. Questions and comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N0_D1C4 (talk • contribs) (on 1 September 2007).

Too late to prevent an edit war; Mpublius had already apparently violated the 3RR rule, and had already been reported. However, hopefully the war will stop here. Yours, Famspear 19:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, I have to say I agree with Tmtoulouse: "You do not 'stop' a revert war by reverting to the non-consensus phrasing in the article." Famspear 19:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Look closely it was new, not a revert. Also, no info was really lost, just rearranged. But, if pandemonium is what Tmtoulouse was going for I will have to just unwatch this page for a while. N0 D1C4 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear N0 D1C4: Yes, I saw that. You did have the Dan Evans thing in your edit. You deserve credit for trying to tone things down a bit. But I think Tmtoulouse was referring (as I was) to the first lines of the edit.

In the meantime, I will try to look at the Cryer trial transcript later this weekend, and to locate what I think may have been Cryer's statement that he did not consider himself to be a tax protester. Famspear 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Civil penalty?

This reminds me of Cheek v. U.S. - the defendant was acquitted of criminal charges because there was reasonable doubt as to whether he knew what the law was. However, Cheek was also assessed several hundred thousand dollars in civil penalties which he had to pay to the IRS. Have any civil penalties been assessed in this case, or has Cryer succeeded in not paying (or being deemed to owe) anything to the IRS? bd2412 T 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: As I recall, John Cheek had a conviction overturned based on an incorrect jury instruction, and was convicted again on remand. I think he served a year and a day in prison. Wait a minute -- didn't you create the article on the Cheek case? Anyway, on Tom Cryer we don't know the current status of the collection efforts against Cryer. My understanding is that he has financial problems, so it may be more a problem of collectibility from the standpoint of the IRS. If I can locate anything on the collection status I'll see if it can be added to the article.

And, hey, it's good to see you on the tax-related pages! Yours, Famspear 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Cryer quotation

Dear fellow editors: I am still looking for a reliable source for the reported statement from Tom Cryer that he is not a tax protester. If we can find that quote -- with a reliable source for that quote -- I think I might be able to come up with a proposed reorganization that may satisfy some of the concerns raised by Mpublius on the use of the term "tax protester" in the article. Famspear 16:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Orwellian Writing

This article is an Orwellian nightmare. Wikipedia does not exist to promote government propaganda. I didn't make up the words “tax” and “protester”; both are perfectly serviceable words that existed long before I was born. It's the government that has mashed the two together to form a completely different meaning intended to mislead readers. I urge all Wikipedia editors to read George Owell's essay, Politics and the English Language. Bad writing is not merely aesthetically unpleasant and disingenuous in its discussion of politics; it is morally wrong.

Orwell's fifth rule of good writing is, "never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." Wikipedia editors should let the facts speak for itself, rather than endorse government jargon that destroys the English language. We have not made the slightest bit of progress in resolving this neutrality dispute and I hope this changes, but I'm not optimistic. As Orwell says, “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” Mpublius 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you name anyone other than yourself who uses "tax protester" to mean something different than what we use here, which is not someone who "protests" a "tax". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: "Intending to mislead readers"? "Morally wrong"? "Orwellian nightmare"? With all due respect, that sounds way over the top.

You don't seem to be denying that the cited sources stand for the propositions stated in the article. That is, you don't seem to be denying, for example, that Daniel Evans does indeed designate Tom Cryer as a tax protester. And you don't seem to be denying that Cryer has made legally frivolous arguments about the nature of the Federal income tax in the brief he filed with the court.

How are you coming to your conclusion that the very use of the legal term "tax protester" by attorney Daniel Evans, or the reporting of that use in the article, constitutes "destruction of the English language"?

My impression is that you have a very strong aversion to the use, in a Wikipedia article, of the legal term "tax protester" as applied the way the courts and legal scholars apply that term: to people who make legally frivolous arguments about the nature of the Federal income tax laws. My impression is that this aversion is expressed in the form of a feeling that a citation to Daniel Evans' very use of the term "tax protester" to describe Tom Cryer, the subject of this particular article, itself constitutes "non-neutral point of view." You cite Orwell, of all people, and you seem to labor under the mistaken impression that the article is fomenting "government propaganda."

What government propaganda?

How are you getting to the point that you feel that Daniel Evans' use of the term "tax protester" constitutes an endorsement of "government jargon that destroys the English language"?

Again, in my view this is a misunderstanding of what neutral point of view means. Neutral point of view does not mean we cannot report any biased points of view in the article. Neutral point of view does not require that the sources themselves be unbiased or that the cited material itself be unbiased.

Neutral point of view means presenting all significant competing points of view -- even biased points of view (if any) -- without Wikipedia taking a position that one particular view is correct.

Assuming arguendo that Daniel Evans is "biased", my question is: In what way does citing Daniel Evans' use of the legal term "tax protester" to describe Tom Cryer constitute "non-neutral point of view"? Yours, Famspear 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: I note that you have now posted almost the same commentary on the talk page for Tax protester. If appropriate, we may want to continue this discussion on that talk page, to keep all the comments together in one place. (Perhaps your concerns are more apply more generally to "tax protester" articles, rather than merely the Tom Cryer article?) Yours, Famspear 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Black’s Law Dictionary is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions. Although I'm sure you could occasionally find a rogue court that disparages Black's, it has been the accepted dictionary for most courts, including the Supreme Court, for more than 100 years. It defines a tax protest as:

The formal statement, usually in writing, made by a person who is called upon by public authority to pay a sum of money, in which he declares that he does not concede the legality of justice of the claim or his duty to pay it, or that he disputes the amount demanded; the object being to save his right to recover or reclaim the amount, which right would be lost by his acquiescence. Thus, taxes may be paid under "protest.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1101 (5th Ed. 1979).

This is the plain everyday English definition that rejects the totalitarian Orwellian government claim endorsed in this article that Tom Cryer is a tax protester merely by disagreeing with the government about a tax issue. Cryer has made no tax payment, registered no protest, and initiated no suit; therefore he is not a tax protester.

You've not only libeled Tom Cryer; you've also disparaged the Congress that passed legislation reforming the IRS. The government did not deprive Cryer of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution; so Cryer did not register a protest. Congress enacted legislation after realizing that the IRS had degenerated into an abusive Orwellian agency where a man is guilty until proven innocent; and at least in the Cryer case, the legislation was successful and functioned as intended.

If you work for the government, or are wholly or partially dependent on government spending or regulation, you might wax nostalgic for the days when the government could run roughshod over citizens, but Wikipedia should strive to be a neutral source similar to Black's Law Dictionary. As Orwell's fifth rule of good writing states, deliberately misleading government jargon words should never be used in preference to everyday English words. Mpublius 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: It's probably not very effective for you to copy, paste, and then throw the definition from Black's Law Dictionary at me. I'm the one who cited the definition first, and I'm the one who put it in Wikipedia, not you. See also the other definitions, at Tax protester history. Citing this and other definitions supports my point, not yours.

The term "tax protester," as shown in the article on Tax protester history, clearly has more than one meaning. The common thread is that tax protesters are people who claim that a particular tax is unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, etc., or using whatever other words you want to use. And clearly, the Wikipedia articles correctly use the term as it is used by courts of law -- to denote people who make frivolous arguments about legality of tax law.

Good grief: "If you work for the government [ . . . ] you might wax nostalgic for the days when the government could run roughshod over citizens" ????? Come on now. This is way over the top. What does your feeling about government workers have to do with the neutrality of this article?

Libeling Cryer? Disparaging Congress? Legislation that functioned as intended? Way off base. None of the legislation to which you refer (the 1998 reform act) had any material connection to the Cryer case. The Cryer case was a criminal case. For the umpteenth time, Cryer was not charged with being a "tax protester". Merely being a tax protester is not a crime.

To say that Cryer did not "register a protest" misses the point. Wikipedia cites to reliable, published third party sources that list Cryer as a tax protester and document tax protester arguments he himself made in open court. I don't know how many ways there are to say this.

As clearly shown in the article on Tax protester history, the mere use of the term "tax protester" in Wikipedia is not the use of "deliberately misleading government jargon words." Yes, it is a legal term. No, I doubt that you are going to persuade others or develop a consensus to delete it from Wikipedia merely because you feel its use is "Orwellian" or "totalitarian." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Why don't you (Mpublius) edit your clearly incorrect statement that Black's Law Dictionary is the reference of choice for definitions into tax protester arguments, where it belongs. However, it doesn't support your cause. A tax protester is not necessarily one who creates/performs a tax protest (which possibly should have a separate article relating to your definition above) or formally protest a tax. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, the term tax "protest" (and hence "tax protester") has two very similar but slightly different meanings.

The Black's Law Dictionary definition, like the other dictionary definitions I myself posted, relates to the original generic definition of a tax "protest" as being a position taken that a particular tax is illegal, or incorrect, or invalid, etc. Tax practitioners file these kinds of "protests" all the time with the IRS. There's nothing improper about these kinds of protests. The key concept is that the taxpayer is challenging something about the tax. The material on this is in the article ("Tax protester history") to illustrate that the term is indeed a formal legal term, and that the term indeed was used long before the second meaning developed. For example, one dictionary definition is from the year 1970, which is several years before "tax protester" court cases began popping up in large numbers.

What about the second meaning, the one that applies to the tax protester articles and to this article on Tom Cryer? Well, the article Tax protester history goes on to point out that beginning in the mid-1970s, the courts essentially began using the term tax "protest" in a slighty different way. The courts began using the term tax "protest" to describe a frivolous claim about the legality of taxes. That's a slightly different meaning. You are still talking about an argument about legality of the tax, but now you are saying that the argument itself is so out of bounds that it is legally frivolous.

Mpublius had been trying to argue that there was some sort of sinister, "Orwellian" intent behind the use of the term tax protester. By reading the Black's Law Dictionary definition and the other definitions, Wikipedia user can not only that this is not the case, but also that the second meaning of the term (as used by the courts and here in Wikipedia) is a logical progression.

The legal term "protest" -- as used to describe an argument that a tax is illegal -- is a very old term (that's meaning #1). The separate connotation -- to describe a frivolous argument that a tax is illegal, is newer (meaning #2, the meaning used by the courts since the mid-1970s). Famspear 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Been doing research on the Dan Evans citation on the subject of Tom Cryer

What follows is a list of some observations and plausible conclusions.

Observation: "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article"

Conclusion: This source fails the primary sources test.

Observation: Evans use of the word "protester" has no references and he is a lawyer, not a journalist or reporter.

Conclusion: This source provides no verifiability or creditability.

Observation: If this was a Dan Evans article this self-promotion MIGHT be tolerated however,

Conclusion: Because it is not a Dan Evans article, the source is a soapbox for the promotion of Dan Evans.

Observation: Numerous legal wavers "This is not legal advice" are present. Mentions that the reader should call him for the legal counsel lacking from this site.

Conclusion: This source is essentially an advertisement for the solicitation of his services.

Observation: Evans use of the "protester" is in a vulgar and derogatory manor.

Conclusion: The level of npov or any degree of 3rd party impartiality is < 0; more soapbox self-promoting.

Lastly, just an observation; having "protester", of any kind, is a spam and ad magnet. Such peacock terms should be avoided, above all, in the lead section. N0 D1C4 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user N0 D1C4: You are misreading your own material. The primary sources test, as you have described it, is that "primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article". You are misreading it to say "primary sources are not allowed." In Wikipedia, both primary and secondary sources are desirable in an article. This article contains both primary and secondary sources. No source can be properly deleted from an article merely because it is a primary source, any more than a source can be properly deleted merely because it is a secondary source. Your analysis is completely incorrect.

Dan Evans is not affiliated with the subject of the article. The subject of the article is Tom Cryer. Tom Cryer is a tax protester. Dan Evans is certainly not affiliated with either Tom Cryer or tax protesters, for heaven's sake. Go back and re-read his web page on tax protesters.

The term "protester" is a legal term, not a journalistic one. Evans is a lawyer. Under your line of reasoning, a physicist would not be qualified to pontificate on physics where the physicist is not a "journalist." As a former journalist (I used to be a broadcast news reporter) and as a lawyer-CPA, I can tell you that pound for pound a lawyer or CPA with no journalist credentials is infinitely more qualified to report about legal and taxation matters than is a journalist with no legal or accounting credentials.

The inclusion of a citation to Dan Evans might be considered self-promotion if Dan Evans himself were inserting the citation, although even that is a bit of a stretch. It would really be more like Dan Evans citing himself, which is a separate concept. However, the last time I looked Dan Evans was not editing this article; we are. You want to disqualify Dan Evan's Tax Protester FAQ as a source for information on tax protesters? Come on now.

For the gazillionth time, "tax protester" is a technical legal term. It's the term the courts use. Would you like a list of all the cases where Federal courts have used this term in tax cases in the last five years? (Please don't ask; it's a long list.) There is no other term that can properly be substituted.

Your observation that "Evans use of the 'protester' is in a vulgar and derogatory manor" is your opinion. So, the courts that use that term are also vulgar and derogatory, right? Ask yourself: Why do you feel the use of the term is vulgar and derogatory? Who is it that made the term that way in your eyes? Dan Evans? Or Federal judges? Or the tax protesters who have wasted our courts' time with silly, frivolous arguments about the legality of Federal income taxes?

Regarding the statement that having "protester" is a spam and ad magnet -- could you elaborate? I have no idea what you're talking about. Famspear 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user N0 D1C4O: Oh, and for the record, here is a link to the Daniel Evans Tax Protester FAQ:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

This is the web page that you are saying should be disqualified from being a source for the definition of the term tax protester under your theory that this web page is too much promotion for Daniel Evans! The only reference I see on the entire page is Daniel B. Evans, Attorney at Law, with address, phone number, etc., at the bottom of the page. You are saying that this page should be disqualified as a source because it contains his name, etc., at the bottom, and correctly states that he is an attorney? That's it?

Get real. Famspear 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, the page also has his name at the top, with a legal disclaimer. So, the fact that he posts a legal disclaimer at the top of the page somehow should disqualify his page from being used as a source in Wikipedia? That's your argument? Famspear 03:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the term "tax protester" is not a "peacock" term. For information on peacock terms, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms

Yours, Famspear 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Famspear after reading you’re emotional and overly personal reply (To Much Info), I am reminded of a quote, but more on that latter. Your responses were both unnecessary long and curiously deliberate. But beyond that comment, I will go no further.

First, I do not care whether you have been given permission to use the title of esquire.

If you were a pig farmer, I would not think of you any more or less. Famspear is just an alias; it is your problem what you do with your artificial persona.

Second, they were just observations and reasonable conclusions.

I tried to approach this scientifically (observe, hypothesize, test, evaluate).

Third, please stop injecting your one-sided tone and TRY TO BE POLITE and ASSUME GOOD FATE.

Fourth, your comments are (at best) general, but did not disprove my conclusions.

Fifth, please do not justify your responses to my input, with a question or demand by the reader.

I know it is a hard habit to break and comes in handy when in court, but outside of court it is nothing more than a contraction to most readers.

Sixth, I will ignore any further responses with the words, to the effect of or reasonably similar to, in common speech, of "Come on now."

Your "Cheshire Cat grin" is both disturbing, and serves no useful function.

Seventh, I will try to avoid comments to you character or state of mind, if you drop the "legalese.”

Eight, If you have a complete list of all the cases where courts that have used the term or words "tax-protester" in tax cases in the last five years,

please point me in that direction. Classified by what body(s) of law was present in the court, "including" private and public forms, would save me some time. Thanks.

Ninth, where's that secondary evidence you promised us?

You know that one about him admitting in court to be a "tax-protester."

Lastly, the quote, "Cat: Sure, he can talk. But is he saying anything? No, not really."

N0 D1C4 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user N0 D1C4: With all due respect, go back and read your posts and then read mine.

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. You raised concerns about the use of the term “tax protester” in the article. I responded to your concerns. Emotional and overly personal reply? Cheshire cat? "Unnecessary long" and "curiously deliberate"? Injecting my" one-sided tone"? "TRY TO BE POLITE" and "ASSUME GOOD FATE" (faith)? Can you be specific? What is going on here?

By way of review, here is what I believe was our first interaction in Wikipedia, where you a question in the talk page for Tax protester:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tax_protester&diff=prev&oldid=154063356

Because the question was a bit off topic in my opinion, I responded on your own talk page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N0_D1C4&diff=prev&oldid=154078323

You responded to me with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tax_protester&diff=prev&oldid=154093379

Now review your comments about me above (Cheshire cat, etc.) Are we seeing a trend here? Politeness? Wikipedia has a rule about not engaging in personal attacks. A personal attack is a reference to a person, not to the material. I am commenting on your comments. You, on the other hand, are making personal comments about me. Please go back and review my comments, and then review your own. Then review the Wikipedia rules on personal attacks and civility.

By the way, what “secondary evidence” are you talking about that I supposedly promised you? Refer to the rules on primary and secondary sources. Yours, Famspear 12:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user N0 D1C4: Another note on primary and secondary sources. For the Wikipedia concepts, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

In the article, the citations to actual court documents (including the docket entry numbers, dates, case number and so on) are probably going to be considered citations to primary sources in this context. By contrast, the citations to newspaper accounts and to Dan Evans' "Tax Protester FAQ" are probably considered citations to secondary sources. Thus, the article as written includes citations to both primary and secondary sources. Yours, Famspear 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

More on neutral point of view

Above, user N0 D1C4 stated, in referring to a particular source, legal commentator Daniel B. Evans' "Tax Protester FAQ":

Observation: Evans use of the "protester" is in a vulgar and derogatory manor.

Conclusion: The level of npov or any degree of 3rd party impartiality is < 0; more soapbox self-promoting.

This illustrates a basic misconception about neutral point of view.

In Wikipedia, neutral point of view does not mean that the third party source material itself must be "neutral" or "unbiased" or "impartial." For purposes of Wikipedia, third party sources are allowed to be biased, non-neutral, and partial, and are allowed to express that bias, non-neutrality, and partiality.

Neutral point of view refers to the way the Wikipedia article treats the third party source material -- not to the third party source material itself. Yours, Famspear 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A note about citing sources

Above, user N0 D1C4 stated, in referring to a particular source -- legal commentator Daniel B. Evans' "Tax Protester FAQ" -- :

Observation: Evans use of the word "protester" has no references and he is a lawyer, not a journalist or reporter.

Conclusion: This source provides no verifiability or creditability.

This highlights another misconception. Evans' own use of the word "protester" does not "need a source". We are not trying to verify or credit Evans' material. We are providing a source for a statement in a Wikipedia article. This means that Evans' own material does not need to also cite to a "source" in order for Wikipedia to properly use Evans' statement as a source for a statement here in Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia rule on this is Verifiability. This means that the material in Wikipedia should be properly sourced to verifiable, reliable, published third party sources. The rule does not say that the third party sources themselves must also to cite to still other sources. Otherwise, the citing to sources would never end, with the next source having to cite still its own source, and on and on, etc., etc. Yours, Famspear 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take this VERY slowly.

Please answer either true or false. If false, please keep your comments brief, so we can get through this quickly.

The lead section sets the tone for the rest of the article. N0 D1C4 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear N0 D1C4: I can't speak for other editors, but I am not going to sit for true/false quiz for you.

I and other editors welcome additional comments you may have on how to improve the article. Any additional comments you make may of course result in responses by me or other editors; some of those responses may be brief, and other responses may be long and detailed. Yours, Famspear 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the introduction, I have moved the reference by commentator Daniel G. Evans to Cryer as being a tax protester down a bit in the article. I am thinking it might fit better down below. Also, if anything this might help alleviate some concerns that N0 D1C4 might have about the introduction and the tone of the article. Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you fixed that. No more questions at this time. N0 D1C4 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

False statement about indictments

The article falsely states, "In March 2007, a grand jury added two counts of willful failure to timely file tax returns." Actually, the judge determined, without convening a grand jury, that the misdemeanor "willful failure to file" charges are lesser included charges of the original felony "tax evasion" indictment approved by the grand jury. Although Cryer objected, the judge is arguably right because "tax evasion" requires the prosecutor to prove willful intent. The article should mention Cryer's objection and eagerness to argue the question of whether he owes taxes. Mpublius 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Thanks for the tip. I am going to check on this, hopefully tonight. I have access to the PACER system (the court online records). By the way, do you have docket entry numbers for the documents that might support your information (other than what's already cited in the article)? Docket entry numbers will make the search easier. Yours, Famspear 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may not be able to get to this tonight. Therefore, for the time being at least I just deleted the reference to "the grand jury" even though the actual court document (the superceding indictment from March 2007) specifically states "the grand jury charges." Yours, Famspear 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is from the trial transcript, which is available from Cryer's web site. Also, the article gives the impression that Evans argued the case for the government. In response to Cryer's request to dismiss the charges, the government responded and explained why they believe Cryer owes taxes. This info should be summarized and referenced, rather than the arguments of someone like Evans who may be misrepresenting the government. Mpublius 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any implication that "Evans argued the case for the government". We may need a reference that the fact that the charges were not dismissed by the judge indicates that the tax protester arguments were rejected by the court, or a report on some ruling by the judge that the tax protester arguments (as called such by the judge) were dismissed in order to avoid WP:SYN in the statement that "the Court rejected these and other arguments made by Cryer and denied Cryer's motions to dismiss the charges against him." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Thanks. By the way, though, I don't follow you when you say "the article gives the impression that Evans argued the case for the government" and where you use the verbiage "someone like Evans who may be misrepresenting the government". Evans has no connection to the government (all you have to do is look at his web site, which is already linked in the article), and the article says nothing about Evans (or anybody else) being linked to the government in any way. And what do you mean by "someone like Evans"? And what do you mean by "misrepresenting the government"? Famspear 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The government filed a brief where they laid out their arguments, and it may not be the same as the Evans arguments. We have directly quoted Cryer, but not the government. The article should be improved by using the primary sources. Once that is done, the issues will probably be covered and Evans will be superfluous. We have not quoted Cryer supporters because he has spoken for himself. The government desreves the same. Mpublius 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The government is not allowed to use the term tax protester, so this methodology would tend to disallow the proper use of the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Or to be specific, Internal Revenue Service personnel are not supposed to use the term "tax protester" in official IRS documents. This restriction does not apply to any other governmental personnel. For example, the Department of Justice prosecutors in the Cryer case (or any other case) may (and probably do) use the term freely.

Mpublius, I'm not sure I follow the logic of saying that Evans' commentary would somehow be "superfluous." And I thought you wanted to use secondary sources and remove primary sources. Now you're saying you want to remove a secondary source (the Evans material, presumably) and replace it with a primary source. Again, in Wikipedia the general rule is that both primary and secondary sources can and should be used in an article. I also disagree with the statement that "we have not quoted Cryer supporters because he [Cryer] has spoken for himself." I don't recall any discussion about any decision like that being made by Wikipedia editors for this article. Also, if you want to quote from a government brief filed in the case, and the government "deserves" this, what material would you like to see inserted? Famspear 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: PS, I'll try to get on PACER this weekend (hopefully tonight) and download the actual court document to which Evans refers as quoted in the article. Yours, Famspear 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from Evans material

OK, I have added an excerpt from the Evans material. I deliberately left out Evans' statement that the government "is right" -- even though I could have included it without violating NPOV, as it's Evans (not Wikipedia) taking that position. Also, I used ellipses to replace the detail description of Cryer's arguments that Evans mentioned. Evans does note that the government itself also referred to Cryer as a tax protester. So, in this case, not only does Wikipedia have sourcing for Evans' categorization of Cryer as a tax protester, but Evans himself has sourcing as well -- something that isn't even required under the rules of Wikipedia.

Evans also notes "positive" stuff about Cryer as well -- that Cryer is a lawyer who earned honors in law school. Yours, Famspear 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: On the Verifiability issue, the addition of the Evans materials hopefully has made it clearer that it is Evans (and the government) that are labeling Cryer as a "tax protester." Whether that label is correct or incorrect for Cryer, Wikipedia is citing to reliable, published third party sources. Wikipedia itself is not saying, however, that Evans is correct when Evans labels Cryer a tax protester. Hopefully, this re-arrangement of the materials will help address some of the concerns raised above.

Now, to review about the Neutral Point of View issue: The issue does not relate to Evans' "bias" or to the government's "bias." (Let us assume for the sake of argument that Evans is not neutral about Cryer, and that the government is not neutral about Cryer.) Under the rules of Wikipedia, both Evans and the government can be blatantly biased, completely partial, and non-neutral -- and that does not violate the rule on Neutral Point of View. Evans is a source, and a source can be just as biased as he wants to be. Wikipedia is reporting what Evans (and, indirectly, the government) said about Cryer. Famspear 22:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cryer Biography source

The source of the biographical info is Cryer's web site and should be considered reliable. Mpublius 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It woasn't obviously his web site. But, even if it is, he there are lies on his web site (the tax arguments themselves), so the statements need a caveat. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is to his biography, not to his web site. There's nothing in this article that endorses anything he writes on his web site. I added the caveat that it is from his site. Mpublius 22:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is to what is essentially his resume. That cannot be taken as {{fact}}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that it is fact. It states, "According to information provided by Cryer on his web site." Even his enemy, Daniel Evans, agrees with the biographical statements, which were accepted by the government in the trial, too. Mpublius 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If the information is "[a]ccording to information provided by Cryer on his web site" then it would appear to be a self-published source. This rule might apply here:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer[ . . .]"[17]

Maybe we can find the same information from another source.

By the way, are Cryer and Evans "enemies"??? Famspear 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing cases cited by Cryer

An anonymous editor has added references to Brushaber, "Flint v. Stone Tracy" and Butchers. The editor states that Cryer cited these cases. These are well-known Supreme Court cases already covered in Wikipedia. If we are going to go into this kind of detail on cases allegedly cited by Cryer in support of his own arguments that the Federal income tax does not apply to his own earnings, we should also state what the Court ruled in those cases.

As an aside, I note that Cryer's citations to these cases are simply tired, worn out tax protester rhetoric. Tax protesters have cited these cases over and over for years, to no effect. The rulings in the cases contradict Cryer and the other protesters, and the courts have uninformly rejected arguments like those made by Cryer. Leaving the citations to these cases -- without also pointing out what the Court ruled in those cases - would be misleading to readers, especially those not familiar with the decisions.

Personally, I would prefer just to leave the citations to the cases out. But if they're going to stay, neutral point of view requires that we show both sides, without taking a position as to whether Cryer is legally correct or incorrect. Yours, Famspear 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the citations added by the anonymous editor were in essence citations to the cases. Technically, the statement in the article is that Cryer used these cases. Therefore, the main citation should be to whatever document Cryer filed that cited these cases -- not to the cases themselves. In other words, citing to the Brushaber case itself does not and cannot support the statement that Cryer cited the Brushaber case. Obviously, nothing in the text of the Brushaber case says that "Cryer cited this case." Cryer wasn't even born when the text of the case was written back in 1916, so citing to the case itself cannot possibly support the statement that Cryer cited the case.

I'll try to fill in that detail later. I have partially corrected the problem by changing the wording. Famspear 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the info on Cryer's arguments because the article is nonsensical when it includes the government's response to Cryer's motion to dismiss, but omits a summary of Cryer's motion. I included the quotes that Cryer used from the cases that Cryer used to support his argument. These are Cryer's quotes from his motion to dismiss the charges, not my quotes.

Although the info added by Famspear on the Brushaber article is useful, I removed it for several reasons. First, Wikipedia already has an an article on the Brushaber case, and this article duplicates that info, which is already linked to in this article. Second, the article already includes the government's response to Cryer's argument, and we cannot say the government argued the case poorly and substitute our own original argument, which violates the Wikipedia rule against original research. Third, the article contains mentions 6 cases that Cryer and the government cited, and discussing each case would transform the article into an unbearably long legal brief that would bore most readers. Our task is to summarize the unbearably long legal briefs written by Cryer and the government and distill it to the essentials. This article is a story about Cryer and the government, but the scope should not include a treatise on tax law in general. I removed the section on other cases because it is also original research that duplicates the government's response to Cryer's motion to dismiss.

I removed the Butcher's Union comments because it also is original research in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to question the quality of the government's response to Cryer's motion to dismiss and substitute their own arguments, especially when the judge rejected Cryer's motion. 67.176.38.74 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to remove Cryer's arguments completely if we are not going include refutations, even if not completely sourced. The Tax Protester FAQ] would probably be adequate citation, if a specific citation is needed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about Cryer and the government, not an article about tax protesters and tax law. It must contain the arguments that the parties made, and must not contain original research by Wikipedia editors. Mpublius 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not limited to information about "Cryer and the government." It's an article on Tom Cryer. If we're going to present Cryer's arguments about tax law, we're not going to be limited to "government" responses to his arguments, in terms of maintaining neutral point of view.

The information I added is not "original research." As used in Wikipedia, the term "original research" refers to new synthesis -- made by a Wikipedia editor -- of source A with source B to produce synthesis C. What I added to the article were the holdings in the "Brushaber," "Flint," and "Butcher's" cases. The holding (essentially, the ruling) of a court in a court case is not "original research" by a Wikipedia editor -- it's a ruling by the court.

Cryer's arguments are also "duplications" of material elsewhere in Wikipedia. If the material added to maintain NPOV is objectionable because it's duplicative, then the same rule is going to apply to the descriptions of Cryer's arguments.

Now, let's look at this verbiage:

[ . . . ] discussing each case would transform the article into an unbearably long legal brief that would bore most readers. Our task is to summarize the unbearably long legal briefs written by Cryer and the government and distill it to the essentials.

Our anonymous editor, in noting the potential problem of having the article expand into a long discussion of Cryer's arguments, the government responses, and the actual state of the law, is basic reiterating my own concern -- expressed above -- about going down this road. However, if we're going to go down this road, then we need to go far enough down to maintain Wikipedia rules on Neutral POV. We are not going to be limited simply to "Cryer's arguments" and "the government's arguments." Again, I would prefer just to leave the citations to the cases out. But if they're going to stay, neutral point of view requires that we show both sides, without taking a position as to whether Cryer is legally correct or incorrect. Yours, Famspear 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted the material to the last 10 Sept 2007 version by editor Arthur Rubin. That puts the material back to where it was before the Cryer arguments were expanded. Famspear 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has become heavily biased by censoring defendant Cryer and heaping on piles of original research supporting the government's case, thereby violating Wikipedia rules against original synthesis and research. Wikipedia does not exist to censor people such as Cryer who oppose the government, nor does Wikipedia exist to promote government propaganda. Wikipedia editors must use a neutral point of view. Mpublius 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Equal time for both sides of the controversy

The article now contains the following 423 words supporting the government's case against Cryer:

In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the corporation tax act of 1909 did not violate the constitutional requirement that revenue measures originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Court did not rule that excise taxes consisted only of taxes on corporations and corporate privileges, to the exclusion of taxes on individuals (natural persons). The issue of the validity of an income tax imposed on individuals was neither presented to the Court nor decided by the Court. The courts have rejected the argument that Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. can be used to avoid taxation of wages.[4]

The government responded by stating that Cryer, “asserted various tax protester claims...and courts have rejected and discredited these claims.” The government rejected Cryer's claim that the income generated from his law practice is not taxable, citing Commissioner v. Kowalski, 432 U.S. 437 (1977) (payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayer has complete dominion); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) (rejecting taxpayer's contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction”); Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) (monies received from the sale of one's services constitute income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment).

The article now contains the following 432 words quoting Cryer's defense:

Cryer filed a motion to dismiss the tax evasion charges against him, “on the basis that as a matter of law revenues received by him are not taxed or taxable under the Income Tax laws..., nor are any revenues received by him within the powers of the federal government to tax and that revenues received by him are exempt from taxation by excise under the Constitution....” Cryer argued that Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the federal Constitution forbids direct taxes:[3] “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken....”

Cryer asserted that the government cannot tax any fundamental right, and: “the right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” citing Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.

Since the number of words on each side is about equal (432 vs. 423), the article is free from bias. Please do not add or subtract from the arguments on one side, unless you add or subtract an equal amount from the other to maintain the balance. I have contributed most of the information from both sides in an unbiased manner, and nobody else has bothered to read or quote the briefs contributed by Cryer and the government. Please include only information from these briefs and refrain from adding your own original synthesis or research.

Bear in mind that a long discussion of the motion to dismiss the charges will not only bore readers, but it will also fail to leave room for a summary of the trial, which has not yet been included in the article. Progress on this article has ben hindered greatly by editors strongly biased to pushing a point of view that favors the government and censors the citizen, and may be employed by the government. Mpublius 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Without commenting on the merits of your latest edit, and at the expense of stating what I think will be obvious to everyone, I don't think your argument -- that relative numerical equality means freedom from bias -- holds any water at all. And other editors are not going to feel bound by your latest "rule" -- which seems to be that other editors should not add or subtract from arguments on one side without adding or subtracting an equal amount from the other side. Regarding "original synthesis" and original research, I would suggest that you read or re-read the Wikipedia rules on original research.

Now, let's look at your comments here:

Progress on this article has ben [sic] hindered greatly by editors strongly biased to pushing a point of view that favors the government and censors the citizen, and may be employed by the government.

Comments like that might not going win any arguments for you here in Wikipedia. You may want to go back and read your own edits and commentary, and then read the edits and commentary of other Wikipedia editors.

Also, you may want to ask yourself: What is the "point of view that favors the government" to which you are referring? And, you may want to ask yourself: How does that point of view (whatever it is) "censor the citizen"? What idea or point of view is being censored? And what does all this have to do with improving the article on Tom Cryer? Famspear 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cryer is a citizen and censoring his arguments is censoring the citizen. 129.82.30.177 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tainted edit by Arthur Rubin because although he may not like the argument made by the government, the article contains a verbatum excerpt of the brief submitted by the government. 129.82.30.177 21:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "censoring" Cryer. If excluding some of Cryer's comments from this article constitutes "censorship", then excluding any of his comments or statements constitutes censorship—and we would have to include every single statement made by Cryer.

Pointing out that Cryer's arguments have been repeatedly rejected is not original research. The original research policy prohibits contributers from reaching new conclusions about novel facts—not from reporting established, third-party conclusions about existing facts. Cryer's arguments are not new—the same tired claims have been rejected innumerable times by the courts. Simply because a new person—Cryer—restates old claims, that does not make those claims new. And in this case, we don't even have to reach the conclusion that Cryer's arguments are old: a third party—the federal courts—has done it for us.

Finally, Mpublius, you offer no explanation for reverting my edits to the citations ([18]). You have been repeatedly warned not to revert edits without explanation. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained previously, you've heaped on original research in violation of Wikipedia rules and buried Cryer's arguments in an avalanche, rather than providing links to other sources. 129.82.30.177 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated many times before, Wikipedia does not exist to push a biased point of view. 129.82.30.177 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at IP129.82.30.177: Please review the Wikipedia rule on "No Original Research":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The rule against original research refers to original synthesis by a Wikipedia editor. The rule does not prohibit citing reliable published third party sources; indeed, the rule on Verifiability requires that we cite to reliable, published third party sources.

You still have failed to identify anything in the article as "original research" by a Wikipedia editor.

Also, please do not make these kinds of edits without consensus from other editors. Famspear 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire section, "Cryer's arguments and treatment by other courts" was written by you and is your original research and synthesis on tax law. It is not a description of the controversy between the government and Cryer, and neither party cited any of the cases that you cited in your research. The section is simply your effort to push your biased point of view. Mpublius 11:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: You are correct that the section on the holdings in the court cases is not a description of the controversy between the government and Cryer. The material was not put there for the limited purpose of being a "description of the controversy between the government and Cryer." The Cryer article is not limited to narrow descriptions of the "controversy between the government and Cryer." You yourself, if I recall correctly, have attempted to add links to Cryer's own web page, which includes more than just a description of the controversy between the government and Cryer. Cryer is not merely making his tax protester argument in court. He is doing it in web sites, and in the public media. This is an article about Tom Cryer.

You have fabricated still another imaginary "Mpublius rule". This one seems to be that while you yourself feel free to add material from sources outside the actual court record in Cryer's recent criminal case in Shreveport, Louisiana, you do not want other editors to do the same thing. I don't think you can have it both ways.

This article is not limited to material from the Cryer court record. If Cryer cited -- either in court or outside of court -- a particular court case for some theory of his, there is no Wikipedia rule that prohibits Wikipedia editors from reporting the actual holding of that court case. Wikipedia editors are allowed to use both primary and secondary sources for this purpose. We are not limited to reporting how the government in Cryer's case may or may not have actually responded to one of Cryer's arguments about the Butchers/Crescent case -- or any other case cited by Cryer either during the court proceeding on on his web site or in a radio interview.

Also, you are incorrect when you say the material on the various court cases is my "original research." Please re-read the Wikipedia rules on Original Research. Original research, for purposes of Wikipedia, essentially means that a Wikipedia editor is pushing his or her own theory rather than summarizing sources. Original research includes citing source A which makes "statement A" and source B which includes "statement B" and then claiming that these two statements support Wikipedia editor's "conclusion C."

In other words, Wikipedia probably should not say "Hey, Cryer is wrong, because the Court in Butchers ruled this way." Wikipedia can, however, simply state what the Court in Butchers actually ruled -- with a citation to the actual text of the Court case, and then let the reader decide (if desired) about the merits of all these issues.

Merely summarizing the holdings (rulings) in published, publicly available court cases does not constitute coming up with my own "conclusion C" about the law, any more than merely summarizing Albert Einstein's conclusions in his published 1905 paper on the Special Theory of Relativity would constitute coming up with my own conclusion about how the laws of physics work. The conclusion is Einstein's, not mine. Summarizing the actual result of a court case, like summarizing Einstein's conclusion, is not original research where the summary is true to the source material.

The material to which you object consists of summaries of holdings in various court cases. The material is accurate. The material is not my personal belief, or my personal theory, or my personal "original research."

Also, it is not my original "synthesis." I did not take Source A and Source B and argue that some court said "Statement C." You and other editors can read the texts of the court cases to verify that. You will not find anything whatsoever that is inaccurate in any way in any of that material.

Let me illustrate what original research would be. Like gazillions of other tax protesters, Cryer himself has cited the Butcher's/Crescent case (the New Orleans case) essentially for the argument that his personal income is not taxable. If Cryer were an editor here, and he himself tried to put that in a Wikipedia article in that way, that would be an example of prohibited original research. Why? Because the Butchers/Crescent case contains no ruling about Federal income taxes. It wasn't a case about taxes at all. That would be Cryer, as a Wikipedia editor, coming up with his own conclusion and trying to publish it here.

Now, I am not Tom Cryer, It is OK for me as a Wikipedia editor to report that Cryer made that argument about the Butchers/Crescent case. For neutral point of view, it's perfectly OK for me to also summarize the actual holding in the Butchers/Crescent case and put that in the article as well. In both of these cases, Wikipedia is not saying that Cryer is right or wrong. Wikipedia is reporting what Cryer said, and Wikipedia is reporting what the Court ruled.

Mpublius, I think you are misinterpreting the term "original research." Original research does NOT mean "research to find and add conflicting points of view." Indeed, Neutral Point of View requires that we present differing but significant points of view.

In Wikipedia, we do what is called "source-based research." That is what we are doing when we report (1) on what Cryer said, (2) on what the government said, (3) on what the jury verdict was, (4) on what the court in his case ruled, and (5) on what the courts in Butchers and other cases have ruled.

With all due respect, go back and read your edits here and in other tax related articles. I believe you will see that your comments appear to be an evolving series of excuses and imaginary "Mpublius rules" in favor of including Cryer's arguments while opposing the inclusion of material that you apparently feel contradicts Cryer's statements, just as you are opposed to the very use of the term "tax protester." Yours, Famspear 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"...an article on Tom Cryer and for other purposes."

This article, in its current form, is over engrossed, and is poorly formatted. A "Cryer's arguments and treatment by other courts", now that is not a good idea. It is not even a single idea. It is text like the "and treatment by other courts" that is making NPOV impossible. However, seeing as someone went to a lot of trouble, I will allow the author(s) of this original point of view research to move it to the tax_protester pages (or to anywhere but this article) and tone down the rhetoric here. Please change it ASAP. N0 D1C4

Dear user N0 D1C4: Welcome back. As you know, to "engross" means "to write out in large letters of a kind once used for legal documents," or "to make a final fair copy of (esp. a legislative bill)," or "to express formally or in legal form" or "to take the entire attention of"; or to "occupy"; or to "absorb" (as in "engrossed in a book). Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 464 (2d Coll. Ed. 1976). I'm not sure what you mean by "over engrossed." Also, you may want to elaborate on what you mean by "poorly formatted."

"Neutral point of view" refers to the way various points of view are presented in Wikipedia. To present only Mr. Cryer's arguments without also showing how the courts have uniformly and overwhelmingly rejected his arguments would not be neutral point of view and, indeed, would violate neutral point of view -- by giving what is known as "undue weight" to an extreme minority position that has been overwhelmingly rejected in every single applicable Federal court case without exception (which is the position Cryer's arguments hold). "Cryer's arguments and treatments by other courts" is in my view an excellent idea to describe what should be included in this particular article. The reader can then decide for himself or herself (if desired) about the relative merits of the arguments.

The fact that the overall tone of the article does not reflect only your point of view, or only my point of view, or only Cryer's point of view, does not make the article biased or non-neutral. Quite the opposite: neutral point of view includes presenting various significant opposing or contradictory points of view.

As previously explained, the term "original research" is a defined term. If you believe you can identify any verbiage in the article that constitutes original research, then please try to do so. Yours, Famspear 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the entire section and it is a synthesis of your research of tax law. The title of this article is "Tom Cryer", not "Famspear's Legal Theories." The only legal theories that belong here are those of Cryer and the goevrnment, and you didn't quote any of their theories. Original research is unacceptable on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. The section Cryer's arguments and treatment by other courts specifically quotes "government theories"—i.e., rulings by U.S. courts. Repeatedly crying "it's original research!" "it's original research!" does not make it so. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius. Yes, I wrote the section to which you refer. I am a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia editors write stuff in Wikipedia articles. No, that section is not a "synthesis." It consists of citations to cases, with summaries of the holdings in those cases. Synthesis would be taking some verbiage from case #1 and some other verbiage from case #2 and then trying to argue my own novel theory #3. In fact, the section contains no "Famspear legal theory" at all, much less a novel theory.

As previously stated, this article is not limited to a report on legal theories that Cryer argued in his court case, or to legal theories that the government argued in his court case. This is an article about Mr. Cryer. Please re-read my explanation above. You yourself are trying to cite to material that is not in the court record, yet you seem determined to prevent other editors from doing the same. Famspear 17:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have replaced the citations in the section in question with the citations some of the court cases that had previously been listed in the article, but which had been moved to the talk page here. I made the replacements because the courts in the case summaries I am putting in actually ruled that the arguments in question were "frivolous" -- which is what that paragraph is about anyway. Also, the cases in question are appeals court cases (including the Fifth Circuit case that specifically governed the District Court in Shreveport where Cryer was tried), whereas some of the cases I removed are lower court cases.

Earlier, a lot more cases had been in the article, which was considered overkill. I am simply taking out some of the cases that remained and replacing them with cases that were originally removed, to show higher authority (Appeals Courts being higher than Tax Court, etc.) Yours, Famspear 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have now removed one of the cases from the new list. We had two cases from the Sixth Circuit Court Appeals, now we have one, for brevity. Because there are gazillions of these kinds of cases, you could go on and on. The silly "wages are not taxable" argument has been litigated so many times that the case law is overwhelming. No tax protester has ever won a single case on this. Famspear 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide which side of this controversy is in the right. You can legitimately quote the arguments and cases that Cryer and the government cited, and those are included in the article. But, it is not legitimate to discuss cases that neither Cryer nor the government cited, and argue the case yourself. Wikipedia editors are supposed to be unbiased reporters of the controversy, not advocates for the government or Cryer. Mpublius 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not even going to try to fix the mangled indents)

Cryer cited those cases (or cases which those cases overturned) on his web site, so they're fair game. This article is about Cryer, not about the case in which he was acquitted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was Famspear who cited those cases, not Cryer. I moved the paragraph from Cryer's web site and removed Famspear's arguments against Cryer because neither Famspear nor the government cited those cases (Parker, Perkins, Granzow, Waters, etc.). As I stated before, this is not a forum for biased partisans to promote theories of tax law, except Cryer and the government. Mpublius 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was I, Famspear, who added the material on these cases to the article. I am a Wikipedia editor. And as I have stated before, this is an article on Tom Cryer, not just Tom Cryer's criminal tax case in Shreveport, Louisiana. The proper subject of this article is in no way limited to arguments Cryer made in his own case, or to arguments the government made in Cryer's case. Further, if Cryer made an argument on his own web site that the Moon is made of green cheese, it would be perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia editors to cite to reliable, published third party sources -- such as scientists who might state that The Moon is made of moon dust (or whatever), and not green cheese. Cryer's arguments are the legal equivalent of a green cheese argument, and it is perfectly OK for Wikipedia to also list court cases that have rejected Cryer's theories - regardless of whether Cryer conveniently forgot to mention those cases in his own trial, or on his own web page, or anywhere else.

I am not here as a "biased partisan" to promoted "theories of tax law." By definition, the law is what the courts rule the law to be. The courts have uniformly rejected Cryer's theories as frivolous tax protester rhetoric. That is not my personal "theory."

It is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to include both Cryer's claims and the actual rulings by courts of law -- regardless of whether Cryer has cited those decisions or not, regardless of whether Cryer mentioned them in his court case or not, regardless of whether Cryer mentioned them on his web site or not, and regardless of whether Mpublius likes what the courts have ruled.

Neutral point of view means presenting competing, contradictory points of view, without taking a "Wikipedia position" as to who is right. The article does not say that Cryer is wrong. The article is not promoting a "theory of tax law." The article does not say that Cryer is right. The article reports what Cryer has argued, and the article also reports what the courts have ruled. The reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions, if desired. Famspear 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: It seems to me that by constantly coming up with yet another rationale for deleting the material you feel is injurious to Mr. Cryer (such as your vague references to "neutral point of view," such as the argument that the use of the term "tax protester" is wrong, such as your specious arguments that citations to actual court decisions are somehow "original research" merely because they were inserted by me or another Wikipedia editor, such as your we can only talk about the prior cases Mr. Cryer talked about in his own court case rule, and so on), you are in reality struggling to have the article material be presented so that Cryer's legal theories are shown in just as much detail, with just as much weight, as what you see as the "opposing theories." I believe that what you want to do is to have a reader come away with the idea that Cryer's theories deserve just as much attention as the opposing views. Famspear 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Tom Cryer who "coveniently forget" to cite your cases - it was the government. I resent you accusing me of being biased in favor of Cryer. I am unbiased and I'm only trying to stop you from inserting your biases. The government cited a set of cases in response to Cryer's motion to dismiss, and it is not your role to question the quality of their argument. This is an article about Tom Cryer, not about your tax theories as they apply to Tom Cryer. You can set up and promote your own web site to promote your theories. Mpublius 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: I am not questioning the quality of the government's argument. The government won the argument, remember? The court in Cryer' case ruled in favor of the government. As a result, the case went to the jury, and the jury found Cryer not guilty.

I have not inserted any of "my theories" into the article. You have not made one single substantive objection to any of the citations that you keep removing. You have failed to even try to identify what you contend "my theory" supposedly is. So, Mpublius, you are unbiased, and you're only trying to stop me from inserting my biases? Come on now. Famspear 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More on behavior of Mpublius

Let's look at the prior behavior of Mpublius here:

Drive-by tagging (inserting neutral point of view tag without even raising an issue of neutrality on the talk page):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=prev&oldid=151915129

Here, you deleted citations to court decisions that contradict Cryer's claims, using the flimsy explanation that citations to actual court rulings are "biased" and "unrelated to [Cryer's] case":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=153429640

Removing the reference to Cryer as a tax protester, under the argument that the use of the term is "libelous":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=prev&oldid=153749462

Similarly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=154160760

And again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=154739939

And again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=155002000

Yet you see no problem with inserting material that is complimentary of Cryer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=155929655

Or even citing to Cryer's own web page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=156524577

And citing Cryer's own web page here again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=156554293

And you see no problem with adding more of Cryer's own arguments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=156773398

And again citing Cryer's own web site here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=156776432

This edit wasn't too bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=prev&oldid=156940331

But here, you don't seem to want Wikipedia readers to know what the Supreme Court actually ruled in the cases cited by Cryer (Brushaber and Butchers' Union, etc.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=157879808

And again, you seem to have no problem repeatedly citing to Cryer's own web site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=157993253

And again here, you delete citations to various cases that contradict Cryer's argument and of course insert Cryer's own arguments about Brushaber and Flint v. Stone Tracy and Butchers' -- conveniently, without disclosing what the Court actually ruled in those cases, of course (including the fact that the Court actually upheld the Federal income tax in Brushaber and Flint, and that the Butchers' case didn't even mention anything about Federal taxes):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158077758

And here, deleting cases with rulings that contradict Cryer -- with the flimsy excuse that this is somehow "original biased research":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158473180

And deleting citations again here, with the flimsy and incoherent excuse that the mere citation to cases that seem to contradict Cryer's tax theory is somehow "POV pushing":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158611405

And similarly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158845954

And again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158961741

Mpublius, my personal perception is that when you see material that seems to contradict Cryer's positions on tax law, you label that material as "biased," or "POV pushing," or "original biased research" or "libelous." -- yet you see no problem with citing to Cryer and his own web site. You react strongly where other editors cite to actual court decisions that seem to contradict Cryer, and you keep making up rules (such as "we must cite only those cases cited by the parties in the Cryer case itself"), the effect of which always seems to be the same: To make Cryer or Cryer's arguments look better. At one point you even wanted to include Cryer's citations to the Brushaber case (without also including what the Court ruled in Brushaber), to Flint v. Stone Tracy (without also including what the Court ruled in that case) and Butchers' Union (without also including what the Court ruled, including the fact that this wasn't even a tax case).

These are just your edits to the article itself. Now, go back and review your own comments on this talk page about how you want to justify your edits. Your comments also reveal things about your thought process as you repeatedly attempt to delete material that you feel contradicts Mr. Cryer (while labeling the things you don't like as "biased" or "POV", etc.) Famspear 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's look at the Mpublius comments on this talk page. Notice that on this talk page you, Mpublius, say it's OK to cite to Cryer's own web page for biographical material, as that should be considered "reliable":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=156773706&oldid=156360548

Yet here, you refer to Daniel Evans, the legal commentator who refers to Cryer as a "tax protester" as being Cryer's "enemy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=156800057

Here, you argue for restricting the scope of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=157880986

And here you raise concerns that Wikipedia is "censoring" Cryer (yet referring to cases that seem to contradict Cryer, of course, as being prohibited "original research"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=157890512

Here, you argue that the verbiage devoted to Cryer's arguments must not be materially less (in terms of the number of words) than the verbiage that essentially contradicts Cryer, an apparent attempt to assure that Cryer's arguments are given equal weight with those arguments opposing Cryer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158078616

Mpublius, here's a hint: Neutral point of view does not require that an encyclopedia afford "equal weight" to all arguments -- especially to legally frivolous, fringe positions.

Here, you argue that the entire section listing cases where the courts have rejected arguments like those made by Cryer is somehow prohibited "original research":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158141842

Here, you again refer to the entire section I wrote on court cases that contradict Cryer as being "Famspear's" original research - despite the fact that there is not one word of my opinion in it, and despite the fact that the section contains only a listing of court rulings with citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cryer&diff=next&oldid=158735419

Because legal commentator Daniel Evans refers to Cryer as a "tax protester," Evans is Cryer's "enemy." Under the Mpublius rule, citing to Cryer's own web page is OK because that's "reliable," but citing to court cases that contradict Cryer is not only beyond the scope of the article but is prohibited "original research." Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Famspear 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is Mpublius' latest edit, again moving but retaining Cryer's own argument about tax law, yet deleting the citations to court cases that contradict Cryer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cryer&diff=158973864&oldid=158961741

Yours, Famspear 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Famspear bias

When Famspear claims that Cryer's arguments are frivolous, he is taking a side - revealing a bias. I take no position on whether Cryer or the government's positions are frivolous or brilliant. I'm merely trying to report the controversy, which Famspear wishes to suppress and bury with his own arguments against Cryer. Taking a side is equivalent to participating in the controversy, and not acting as an unbiased reporter. The government defeated Cryer's motion to dismiss the case, and it is a simple matter to quote their brief, the cases they cited, and the government's web site. Arguing the case by writing on tax law is not acceptable and unbiased. Mpublius 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Under the rules of Wikipedia, it is perfectly acceptable for the article to say that the courts have treated Cryer's arguments as "frivolous" -- which they have -- as long as the citations are provided and the summaries are correct. The source material must stand for the proposition stated in the article. This is not "original research" and it's not "non-neutral point of view."

In the material in the article, I have indeed contributed material that says that the courts have treated Cryer's arguments as frivolous. The courts have actually used that legal term -- frivolous -- to describe the arguments Cryer has copied from other litigants, in some cases almost verbatim. Indeed, the arguments are not really original with Cryer. Cryer is copying arguments other people have already raised and lost in court, over and over.

In my personal opinion, the effect of your edits is to remove important information to the effect that (1) these "Cryer" arguments are not "new" with Cryer, and (2) these arguments have been uniformly rejected by the courts for years and years. Indeed, we are only citing four or five cases like this. There are hundreds of cases where the courts have ruled the same way. Merely citing a few cases does not constitute "taking sides." Nowhere does the article say "the courts are right" or "Cryer is right." And nowhere does the article "argue the case" or "take sides."

I do not wish to "bury" Cryer's arguments; indeed I haven't deleted his arguments from the article. The only materials that have been deleted from the article (on this particular issue) are the references to the court cases -- which you keep deleting.

I do not "claim" that Cryer's arguments are frivolous, in the sense in which I think you are arguing. Yes, Cryer's arguments are legally frivolous -- but not because I personally say so. That is not merely my personal belief. "Frivolous" is a legal term, and this is a legal point. I don't have any control over that, and neither do you.

There is absolutely nothing in the Wikipedia material you keep deleting that is inaccurate or biased.

Yes, I guess you could say that the source materials (that is, the actual texts of the court decisions) are in some sense "biased." That is, the courts have taken sides -- they have rendered judgments (sorry, but that's what courts do) -- and those judgments always go against Cryer's arguments. Always. Without exception (at least as of mid-September 2007). I think that this is what is really bothering you. You are rationalizing your edits by trying to argue that the Wikipedia article material you keep deleting is "original research" or "biased" or that I, Famspear, am biased -- when what is really going on is that the source materials (the court decisions) are objectionable to you because you don't like what they say.

Whether you or I personally "take sides" interesting, but not determinative here. All editors are probably "biased" on something to one degree or another. What is important is that the article itself not take sides. That does not mean that the article must treat each side of an argument with equal weight. That does mean that the material must be presented without Wikipedia itself saying "this guy is right" or "that guy is wrong." Famspear 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mpublius, Famspear is not the only editor who disagrees with you, has made edits you disagree with, or has countered your repeated deletions of sourced material. In addition to myself, Arthur Rubin, Sidatio, Tmtoulouse, Eastlaw, and BD2412 have all made edits that you have attacked as biased, or have reverted your unfounded deletions of sourced material. While Famspear has been most active in responding to your accusations, this conflict is not just between him and you—it is between you and a number of other editors, who have bent over backwards to try to accommodate you, and have treated you with great restraint and respect—a favor you have not returned.

I suggest you calm down and back away from editing this article (but whether you do so is your choice). No matter what form this article takes in the end, it will not be of great importance. The U.S. system of taxation is not going to be overturned because one Wikipedia article makes the claims that you want it to. Try to put this article in perspective and realize it's not going to change the world. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Slight reform

The style is still off a bit and the formating needs more work, however one of my concerns have now been addressed. N0 D1C4 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Still more reforms

"Treatment by" is a bit confusing to those unfamiliar with its implications. Also, "Cryer's arguments" in the section title is redundant because his case info is listed above; “on his web site" is also redundant. N0 D1C4 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk archives for Tom Cryer (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	1 >>

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.