Talk:Tom Cryer/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: More objectionable material

message: Dear Mpublius: Requesting page protection as you did here:
--might not be an appropriate method to handle a content dispute. Yours, Famspear 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting page protection to get your own way?

message: 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)
thread_title: Various changes were reverted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Submission of Revised Version

message: 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. Connor898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990). (tax evasion conviction under  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. Commissioner724 F.2d 469, 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9209 (5th Cir. 1984). (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. Commissioner746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984). ( 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 States797 F.2d 268, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9576 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 274 (1986). (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 States2005-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,289 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____ (2005). (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  for filing tax return with frivolous position -- was therefore proper);
*Granzow v. Commissioner739 F.2d 265, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9660 (7th Cir. 1984). (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. Commissioner764 F.2d 1389, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9512 (11th Cir. 1985). (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trimmed court cases 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Civil penalty? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Looking for Cryer quotation

message: 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)
thread_title: More on neutral point of view

message: 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)
thread_title: A note about citing sources

message: 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)
thread_title: More on behavior of Mpublius

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slight reform 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Still more reforms