Famspear

There are serious problems with how you perceive yourself and your behaviour on Wikipedia

You wrote: "Dear "A Registered Poster": No, my "recent behaviour" is not "vulnerable to penalty on Wikipedia." I'm not the one breaking the rules. I have been editing Wikipedia for over eleven years, and I have never been blocked by an administrator. I have already read the rules. Please go back and re-read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, including in particular WP:BRD, to which you keep referring. Famspear (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)"

Famspear, you broke the rules. That is unequivocal. And you didn't break just one, but you broke many. Just take a look at what the BRD says, and look at what your actions were. And it says in the BRD, that continuing an edit-war as an uninvolved party (which was your very first action in the 2014 Crimean Referendum thread) is subject to sanctioning, so you certainly have broken Wikipedia's editing rules, are you are certainly vulnerable to penalty if similar behaviour from you continues. And your behaviour is also not supported by Wikipedia's WP:BRD, which you kept referring to as justification, but is outright opposed by the BRD in meticulous detail.

It seems that you think there's a glass-ceiling at Wikipedia, which you sit above, and that because you have been editing for a long while that the rules don't apply to yourself, or that you are protected from penalty when you violate them. Wikipedia cannot maintain an appearance of credibility if its editors think in such ways. I would not recommend you continue ignoring rules, thinking that editing for 11 years makes you exempt from them and receiving of special protection privileges when you break them. That you've been editing for a long while instead makes you more responsible to continue to be aware of Wikipedia's rules, and to not mis-reference them, but to follow them yourself, to set a positive example and not to be a cause of problems on Wikipedia.

A Registered Poster (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't broken the rules. No, it does not "seem" that there is a "glass-ceiling" at which I supposedly "sit above." Again, I would suggest that you re-read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I encourage you to continue to contribute to Wikipedia -- within the rules. Famspear (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have read them in-depth many times over the past few days, and I promise you that you continuously professing to have not broken the rules is not equivalent to if you had in-truth not broken them. Maybe you need to spend a little time re-familiarizing yourself the rules, and not assume that because you've been here for a long time that the rules are whatever sentiments you have replaced them with, within your own mind. Likewise to being unable to fulfill the ideal of not breaking Wikipedia's rules by simply saying such, you are also unable to speak for what "seems" to be in the perspectives of others, concerning your behaviour and hypocritical speech.A Registered Poster (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. I suggest that you re-read the rules some more. Famspear (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your belief that all it takes for a long-time editor to hide from infraction is to say "Wrong," and "No," only proves as certainty that you are removed from looking at your personal behaviour objectively, and feel a sense of privilege. Wikipedia rules and guidelines fully endorse my behaviour up until I contravened the 3RR rule, while they conversely rebuke yours, starting with your first action in the matter, which exemplified WP:BRDWRONG, and then followed it up by misrepresenting BRD.

"Related to the ninja is the editor who flies in with "I'm reverting you per BRD" but then doesn't discuss the reasons for reverting or address prior discussion of the material that they reverted. They don't cultivate the anonymity of the ninja, and are more obstructive than destructive. They probably think of themselves as staunch defenders of Wikipedia. They need to understand that the point of BRD is not the R but the D."

- "Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party."

- "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring"

- "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

I gave you many benefits of the doubt in my discourse with you, Famspear, thinking that you might actually be seeing things in a particular way, but you've doubled-down on the obviously-indefensible many times over, making it clear that you are in sheer denial-mode, for the sake of preserving a pretense of superior judgment and seniority. As such, there is little left to respect of your position, let alone your singular 'No u' argument. A Registered Poster (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear user “A Registered Poster”: You’re not getting anywhere with this behavior.

For anyone reading this who is not familiar with the case, this matter relates to edit warring behavior (including violation of the Three Revert Rule) by “A Registered Poster” in a series of about 29 edits to the article entitled Crimean status referendum, 2014 on or about November 19 and 20 of 2016. User “A Registered Poster” ignored suggestions by me and by editor “Volunteer Marek” that before re-inserting his edits, he should discuss them on the article talk page.

He did not discuss his edits on the talk page. Instead, he continued with the disruption. Because of his disruptive behavior, he was blocked by an administrator for 48 hours. He appealed the block, and the block was upheld on appeal by yet another administrator.

Now that the block has expired, “A Registered Poster” is free to edit articles again. So far, he has not done so.

Instead, in the space of just a few hours, he has made about 22 posts to this, my own talk page. In response, I have repeatedly suggested to “A Registered Poster” that he re-read the rules here at Wikipedia.

RES IPSA LOQUITUR. Famspear (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"User “A Registered Poster” ignored suggestions by me and by editor “Volunteer Marek” that before re-inserting his edits, he should discuss them on the article talk page."

Famspear, such a comment is continuing your attempts mislead and to shift focus, while feigning innocence for yourself. I have not argued that I broke the 3RR rule (which I was unaware of at the time), though it would not have happened if you didn't contravene all of the following BRD guidelines, and more:

Hi Famspear, please read WP:BRD, which you clearly have not ever done, or otherwise you are outright deliberately ignoring it (while somehow trying to use it for your justification). In BRD, you will see it said:

- "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring"

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "Warning: engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions."

- "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion."

- "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones."

To this very moment, you have not raised a single objection to any of the edits I made, other than BRD.

WP:BRDWRONG "Related to the ninja is the editor who flies in with "I'm reverting you per BRD" but then doesn't discuss the reasons for reverting or address prior discussion of the material that they reverted. They don't cultivate the anonymity of the ninja, and are more obstructive than destructive. They probably think of themselves as staunch defenders of Wikipedia. They need to understand that the point of BRD is not the R but the D."

BTW, there are no edit discussions for the page 2014 Crimean Referendum. So, not only is your referral to BRD as claimed-justification for removal of edits invalid, but it is also hypocrisy, in light of all the additions and edits make to the 2014 Crimean Referendum page (and most other Wikipedia pages). Your decision to start reverting edits based on BRD (For what, who can know? You never brought up criticism with the edits, other than BRD - do you think people are mind-readers for what you want to discuss?) is arbitrary, BRD-contravening, and hypocritical in its selectiveness.

Famspear says: "He did not discuss his edits on the talk page. Instead, he continued with the disruption. Because of his disruptive behavior, he was blocked by an administrator for 48 hours."

Editing a Wikipedia page (that was adding content, not removing it, and while nobody else was editing it) is not a disruption, and you are being deliberately conniving with such a statement. I also was not blocked because of disruptive behaviour, but because of 3RR, which you provoked by breaking multiple Wikipedia rules and guidelines. You have no authority to demand that someone discuss edits with you before they make them - and you have not ever even mentioned any criticism of the actual edits.

Famspear, if I am not getting anywhere, it is because there is apparently not honesty-enough within yourself to acknowledge that you broke the rules before I broke the 3RR rule, and to provoke the breaking of the 3RR rule, or that you have been and continue to misrepresent Wikipedia's BRD as your proclaimed justification. You cite breaking 3RR as the reason for a temporary block, however, you don't own up to breaking rules in order to provoke the breaking of 3RR. You act as if you're above the rules, and above being challenged for contravening them. Your own defense is nothing, except claiming BRD, which was never a defense to begin with, according to BRD, itself - and to common sense. I think it's clear that you need to separate your ego from your decision-making.

I'm done with this, which I'm sure you're happy about. But I'm not pleased that someone (and as a long-time moderator) is so eager to accuse to an unjust end, but cannot acknowledge the fault in their own behaviour and decisions. A Registered Poster (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear "Poster": You falsely stated: "To this very moment, you [Famspear] have not raised a single objection to any of the edits I made, other than BRD."

That is utterly false.

You violated the three revert rule, and you were edit warring. You also refused to discuss your edits on the talk page for the article. Those are the objections I and other editors raised - repeatedly. You were blocked by an administrator for your behavior.

Further, you are the one who brought up WP:BRD, not I. You keep bringing up "BRD" as somehow being a justification for your disruptive edits. You are wrong. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS BRINGING UP BRD, yet you object because I point out that you need to RE-READ IT -- as well as other Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

By the way, I am not a "moderator." Wikipedia does not have "moderators" for its articles. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia does have ADMINISTRATORS. I am not a Wikipedia Administrator.

You still aren't getting this. Famspear (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Links to various firms

Thanks for your feedback I am new here although I am confused why you deleted a reference to our firm but kept other firms that I also added that just seems like you're being vengeful am I missing something? If the goal is to be objective you should keep both the firms that were cited as well as our firm there's no reason for you to delete us and keep others.

Thanks again for your input Dmikebishop (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to regarding links to other firms' web sites. I'll go back and check. Famspear (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I found it -- or at least I think I found what you're referring to. I have deleted them. Wikipedia is a work in progress. The deletion of one item or link does not necessarily imply the approval or other items or links that remain. Famspear (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure why you would think I'm being "vengeful." "Vengeful" implies an act of vengeance. I'd never even heard of your firm until the past few days, and I've never had any dealings with your firm, much less anything that would cause me to be want to take "vengeance." See also WP:AGF. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. We can always use help with tax-related articles in particular. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your assumptions about Wikipedia guidelines (response to your followup)

To my previous post, detailing the Wikipedia BRD, and how you failed to follow its guidelines and instead misused it, you wrote "No."

No, you don't want to adhere to the Wikipedia BRD? Then you certainly shouldn't be bringing it up as justification for reverting other editors' work. Please read the BRD:

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work"

- "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it."

- "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party."

Also, please consider this as a warning of your behaviour. As BRD states, your recent behaviour is vulnerable to penalty on Wikipedia. I hope that you will read Wikipedia's BRD, and that, going forward, you will also be mindful of how your behaviour should be, in light of what is best for Wikipedia, and of what its guidelines say.

A Registered Poster (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear "A Registered Poster": No, my "recent behaviour" is not "vulnerable to penalty on Wikipedia." I'm not the one breaking the rules. I have been editing Wikipedia for over eleven years, and I have never been blocked by an administrator. I have already read the rules. Please go back and re-read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, including in particular WP:BRD, to which you keep referring. Famspear (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your assumptions about Wikipedia guidelines

"Related to the ninja is the editor who flies in with "I'm reverting you per BRD" but then doesn't discuss the reasons for reverting or address prior discussion of the material that they reverted. They don't cultivate the anonymity of the ninja, and are more obstructive than destructive. They probably think of themselves as staunch defenders of Wikipedia. They need to understand that the point of BRD is not the R but the D. "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."" WP:BRDWRONG

Famspear, you wrote: "::No, that is incorrect. You are required to discuss your edits on the TALK page for the article. You have not done that. You posted on the talk page for Volunteer Marek, not on the talk page for the article. And, you failed to obtain agreement from any other editors.

Other editors do not need a "justification" for a "complete reversal" of the information. YOU are the person trying to insert the material and, under Wikipedia rules, YOU are therefore the person required to persuade other editors -- not the other way around.

No, other editors are not required to bring up further issues "specifically." Again, the burden is on YOU, because you are the person trying to add the material to the article. Famspear (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)"

Famspear, all of what you have written above is contradictory to the Wikipedia guidelines, as well as common sense, and is specifically explained as being the wrong way to see things in the Wikipedia BRD. Please read the Wikipedia BRD guidelines, to understand how Wikipedia works.

You wrote: "You are required to discuss your edits on the TALK page for the article"

BRD says: "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

BRD says: "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

BRD says: "BRD doesn't work well in all situations."

BRD says: "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion."

BRD says: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work "

BRD says: "Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

So, not only are you entirely wrong in your ideas of what Wikipedia requires, and what BRD says, but your actions have also been in violation of the rules you claim defend them. As such, I, again, encourage you to read and understand the BRD guidelines, and also Wikipedia's other rules and guidelines, and not just reference their acronyms, feeling as though you're assumptions of what they're about are good enough, because they aren't.

You wrote: "No, other editors are not required to bring up further issues "specifically." Again, the burden is on YOU, because you are the person trying to add the material to the article."

BRD says: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones."

BRD says: "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion."

BRD says: "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it."

BRD says: "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

BRD says: "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

You were, and if you continue in your thinking, still are wrong. That's that. And there indeed was very good reason for my reverting the original, and subsequent revert. Each revert, I made adjustments to the edits to improve them. However, you haven't been addressing the content, or even seem to care about the content. It appears as though you simply want to see BRD, and feel slighted because your demands for BRD are not being submit to. But if you're claiming issues with the edits, then it is your responsibility to bring to light what those issues are. You can't, while wanting to be seen as possessing sanity, claim that discussions need to occur, without ever making mention of what it is that you think needs to be discussed. The person who makes the edits you want to discuss certainly can't know what you find to be in need of discussion without you first mentioning whatever issues you find there to be with the edit. So, the onus in this situation is entirely on yourself.

Further, Famspear, your conduct on the 2014 Crimean Referendum Wikipedia page, of adding a couple further reverts to existing reverts, is explicitly prohibited in the BRD guidelines:

BRD says: "Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party. A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert."

BRD says: "Warning: engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions."

So, your own behaviour was against the Wikipedia conduct principles and BRD guidelines from the start. Again, I think that it is important that you read the BRD guidelines, and try to understand what they're saying to you. It don't think that you'll find them difficult, I think they're written very coherently.

BRD also says: "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit... The "Bold–refine" process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle... if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop editing and move to the next stage, "Discuss"."

The above is a guideline which you, and Volunteer Marek failed to follow. In conjunction with the BRD guidelines of:

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work"

- "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it."

- "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party."

... altogether, Famspear, your conduct has been comprehensively in violation of Wikipedia's BRD, and the good-editing-practices principles behind them.

Also, Famspear, when Volunteer Marek contacted you to continue reverting my work, that attempt to technically side-step Wikipedia's 3RR rule is not in keeping with the principles of why the rule exists, and it certainly wasn't obeying what the BRD says. Next time another editor asks you to help them avoid a technicality, please remind them that such behaviour is against the principles of Wikipedia, and consider reporting that user to Wikipedia admins. You and Volunteer Marek should both have followed BRDs guideline on this matter, which says: "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."

For my side of things, I was unaware of the 3RR rule, and I conceded to the enforcement of it. However, my original choice to revert, and edit to improve my content additions, was the right course of action, according to wikipedia BRD:

BRD says: "Bold, revert, bold again: Don't stop editing, and don't discuss. Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different edit to see whether that will be accepted."

BRD says: "When in doubt, edit!"

I did this, going through my work each time I reverted and making edits. It seems that you didn't read any of the edits before reverting again, something which BRD disallows, as you never brought up any issue with the content.

I will continue to pursue my edits to the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, while being mindful of Wikipedia's guidelines, and the good-faith conduct which they are meant to serve.

A Registered Poster (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Go back and read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including BRD. Famspear (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Reworked Crimea 2014 edits - part 2

At this point, I have reviewed the complaints put forth by Volunteer Marek, and made changes to correct the format issues. If there are no further complaints, then I will reinstate the information.

A Registered Poster (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Reworked Crimea 2014 edits

Famspear, I had already gone through all my postings for the 2014 Crimean referendum wiki page, and fixed all the issues I could notice which Volunteer Marek made mention of. I also posted on their talk page my view, and made arguments ahead of reposting the information, the 2nd time. I also am just figuring out some of the details of Wikipedia, and so some of this is new to me. However, I don't see justification for the complete reversal of information which, on the whole, is solid, and which has been reworked to fix the complaints made by Volunteer Marek.

If there are further issues with the edited material, then they can be brought up specifically, rather than targeting a wide range of edits and additions, most of which have nothing to do with specific issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Registered Poster (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. You are required to discuss your edits on the TALK page for the article. You have not done that. You posted on the talk page for Volunteer Marek, not on the talk page for the article. And, you failed to obtain agreement from any other editors.

Other editors do not need a "justification" for a "complete reversal" of the information. YOU are the person trying to insert the material and, under Wikipedia rules, YOU are therefore the person required to persuade other editors -- not the other way around.

No, other editors are not required to bring up further issues "specifically." Again, the burden is on YOU, because you are the person trying to add the material to the article. Famspear (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of supporters' POV and COINTELPRO reference on Schaeffer Cox article

You removed both my link to telling the other side of the Schaeffer Cox legal disputes on the grounds that I linked a YouTube video. While I understand that, I think it should have been replaced by something else, otherwise better to leave it in for now in order to provide balance. The article as a whole is not very viewpoint neutral as it stands. It generally gives only the legal charges against him (i.e. the government's POV) without telling the other side of the story. You also removed the reference I added to the FBI's notorious COINTELPRO -- that was a direct link to another Wikipedia article, so I don't see the grounds for objecting to the quality of the source. The FBI's history of going after peaceful political dissidents is very relevant to this article, so that people will be able to evaluate supporters' claims in a historical context.

Starchild (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all, in an article on a living person, the Wikipedia rule is that unsourced or improperly sourced material should be removed immediately. Our role here is not to strain to tell the "other side" by inserting material that does so, and then waiting and hoping to find some better source for the material later.

And, as you noted, the reference to COINTELPRO is a reference to another Wikipedia article. We generally don't use Wikipedia article B as a source for an assertion in Wikipedia article A. And trying to tie Cox's situation to the COINTELPRO operation many, many years ago is conjecture, and would be prohibited Original Research where done only by a Wikipedia editor. Further, nothing in the article on COINTELPRO says that the FBI or any other government agency is (or was ever) engaged in some sort of operation against Schaeffer Cox, unless I missed it. Instead, I believe we should look for a reliable, previously published third party source that actually ties COINTELPRO (or a similar government operation) to Schaeffer Cox.

The article is not merely talking about "legal charges" against Cox, or about the "government's point of view." Schaeffer Cox was found guilty by a jury in a court of law. So, it's no longer merely the "government's" point of view.

In Wikipedia, "Neutral Point of View" does not necessarily mean showing all points of view. Neutral Point of View generally means showing the significant points of view, without Wikipedia itself taking sides. (It also means that Wikipedia does not strain to give equal weight to all sides in a misguided effort to be "fair" or "neutral.")

The reason that the article seems to reflect badly on Schaeffer Cox is that the reliable, previously published third party sources have reported things that do not reflect well on Schaeffer Cox. That is not the fault of the Wikipedia article. The article material is presented in a neutral manner. Wikipedia does not take a position that the government was right or wrong, or that the jury was right or wrong, or that Schaeffer Cox was right or wrong.

Schaeffer Cox has been telling his side of the story for years. He also had the opportunity to do so at his trial, with all the legal protections afforded a defendant in a criminal case in the United States. Further, even with him in prison, the internet is a "big place" and there is still plenty of "cyberspace" for Schaeffer Cox -- or his supporters -- to provide a point of view. Famspear (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry for the roundabout communication

--Hi sorry for the roundabout communication- I noticed that you removed my external link from an entry regarding United States Bankruptcy. The link contained a directory of people involved in the American Bankruptcy Institute- was there any particular reason? - (SpockTeam2008 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)SpockTeam2008)

See generally [1] and other Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Showing that link in the article on bankruptcy would be like having a link, in an article on lawyers, to a website for a directory of lawyers in the United States or having a link, in an article on accounting, to a website for a directory of accountants. Wikipedia articles should not be used for these kinds of links. See also the comments posted on your user talk page. Famspear (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Help if you have time

Famspear, your help would be appreciated on the FairTax article if you have the time. I can't keep up and, like our tax protest articles, it gets it share of people screaming (at least when featured on the main page of wikipedia). We need some more people that are familiar with the policy to keep the random IP and new editors in check. I don't want to look like the article nazi. Not to suggest that I dismiss their opinion but some of this is a misunderstanding of policy or it has been discussed over and over. As you know, I tend to gain wikistress on these war-zone articles. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this article has been brought up at WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#FairTax Dealing with this is getting quite stressful. As an active member of the Tax Wikiproject, your viewpoints would be greatly appriciated. Morphh ^(talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be able to rejoin the discussion over at FairTax. This has become too difficult to address by disputing parties and the introduction of a first time moderator has recently made it worse. It looks like we may be heading to an arbitration, but we just need more people in the discussion. This article is seriously wearing me out. Most of the discussion is not really about content, it's more about policy and the basis for including and excluding content. Debates over WP:FRINGE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Famspear, are you available to help enhance Taxation in the United States? Help needed, big effort involved. Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls

Hey there, just some friendly advice after reading your response on Talk:Federal Reserve System. I understand that it's terribly frustrating that a constant stream of users finds the need to ask the same misguided questions about the Fed. I've found it's not necessary to respond to all, or even most, of these comments. I make it a point only to deal with users who make it clear that they want to work with us to improve the article, rather than just complain. Check out meta:What is a troll?#Not feeding the trolls, which I've found supremely useful. Looking forward to continue patrolling Federal Reserve System with you. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess I'm feeling a bit grumpy today. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Random question for you

I am considering someday getting an LLM in tax law. But what I would like to know is: is it necessary to have a CPA or an accounting background to become a tax lawyer? --Eastlaw (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Eastlaw: I would say that it is definitely not necessary to have a CPA certificate or an accounting background to become a successful tax lawyer. (I believe that having the accounting background does help, though. I myself became a CPA, and practiced public accounting for several years, before I went to law school -- but lots of people do not take this route.) I'll try to get back to you with more on the topic later! Yours, Famspear (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems Mpublius is back

Hello again Famspear; thanks for the earlier career advice. Anyway, it seems that your good buddy <sarcasm> Mpublius has returned to Wikipedia and is writing new articles. For example, these about Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles and the Petroleum Nationalization in Mexico. I've made a few minor changes to the former, but perhaps you should have a look at them. I don't see anything majorly wrong with the articles, but I don't trust this guy to obey WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. By the way, I notice on your user page that your undergraduate degree is in economics. I was majoring in economics for a while, right before I switched my major to accounting. I believe I got about 15 semester hours of economics under my belt. I probably don't remember much, though. I do remember that I enjoyed micro-economics a lot more than "macro." And one of the courses was an economic history of the USA, which started, literally, with the fall of the Roman Empire and went quickly through the Middle Ages before getting into the details of the economic development of North America. Pretty good course, as I recall. Famspear (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I liked macro better than micro, largely because the courses I took were more focused on the social/political science side of economics. I would have liked to take economic history, but the course list always filled up within about five minutes of opening! I guess that's one of the drawbacks of going to a huge state school. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Yep it is me over there, been lurking for awhile. Decided to join in a bit. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Federal government of the United States

Hi Famspear. The categories seemed to have disappeared from Federal government of the United States. If you have the time, perhaps you can track them down. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

request for arbitration

Current requests

[edit]Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes 'Initiated by Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk)atSelf-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [edit]Involved parties Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Famspear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Non Curat Lex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) When I found the "pro se" page, it contained statements that were contrary to the U.S. code and Supreme Court statements. No sources were cited for the misrepresentations. I pasted in the U.S. code and Supreme Court cases concerning the subject both with footnotes and they were repeatedly deleted by "Non Curat Lex", "Famspear" and/or "Arthur Rubin". One of them also deleted a quotation, with references, from the ABA journal interviewing Justice Scalia. They appear to have an agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret. They keep calling Supreme Court decisions "primary sources" and "case dumps". In other articles on legal issues, Supreme Court decisions are simply summarized or quoted with footnotes. One of them deleted a Supreme Court discussion of William Penn. It does not appear that they have posted anything with any footnotes. I deleted only a few unsupported sentences that were contrary to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. My character is being attacked for adding quotations of the U.S. code, Supreme Court and various constitutions. I don't know what to do but I hate to see Wikipedia spreading misinformation. I don't have a problem with them posting laws, cases, quotations etc. but they are not posting verifiable authorities, they are just deleting my verifiable major authorities and criticizing me personally. They also deleted a scholarly U.S. 2nd circuit decision that quoted 2 law review articles and 4 history books. Much of what they deleted they removed to "sub pages". I don't have all the Wikipedia formatting figured out and I tried to post a request for style. I guess I did that wrong somehow because it didn't appear but they wouldn't help me do that right. All that I want to do is make sure that the U.S. code and relevant Supreme Court decisions are posted so that Wikipedia users see them. I thought the Justice Scalia interview was relevant and that the deleted 2nd Circuit discussion of history was much better than the postings without footnotes that it supplemented. There is extensive discussion on the article discussion board. Some of it they removed to subpages

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Please see this page and add any statements or comments that you consider necessary. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the intelligent and effective message on the request for arbitration page, Famspear. You hit all the key points. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Famspear (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never done a wiki arbitration. Do you know how many votes are needed to reject? How long before we find out if it has been accepted? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either. Would you believe -- I can't even remember whether I've ever participated in any arbitration. Famspear (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I have't. But seriously, in the mean time, "Kay Sieverding" is still screwing with, and screwing up that article, with obtuse and pointless quotations. I think we're dangerously close to an edit war. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a remarkably long arbitration back in 2005-6, and it is like any adversarial proceeding -- not fun for those involved. I believe that it currently takes the consent of four of the ten arbitrators within a ten day period to hear a case. I consider that vanishingly unlikely in this instance -- Arbcom does not arbitrate content disputes, only conduct disputes -- unless one of the named parties allows frustration to degenerate into incivility, violates the 3RR, etc. The important thing is for everyone to remain calm and polite and to clearly explain edits, while not compromising an insistence on quality writing and citations. It is also important to discuss and establish a consensus -- ideally including Kay, but of everyone else if need be -- on how sections should be phrased. There is currently an article RfC. I hope that need never escalate to a user RfC. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adversarial proceedings are fun for me - as long as they are between other people. How do you think I earn a living?! Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pub Finance box on TASC

Should this maybe be removed from Taxing and Spending Clause? I put it in there around the start of the year with the whole overhaul of the article from the old General Welfare Clause page, and that was only so it'd have some nice filler at the time, and to make it look better. Any advice on taking that box out. Also, any advice on some other design-wise things that might spruce the page up some? Foofighter20x (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the box looks fine to me as it is in that article. I wouldn't take it out - just my opinion. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nottingham

Good grief. To have two people who stood before him both show up to edit the article - what are the chances? Whether or not the website cuts it, there are links to several news articles there that might be useful, but I will let you and the other editors make that judgment. I only had this article on my watchlist to make sure Kay didn't return. Risker (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous Rico Case-88-50143WS David W. Harbin v. US

Sorry that the article did not meet your criteria. I had trouble at every other turn, so why should I think this would be any different. The case was passed around to about 5 different Federal Judges until it wound up on the desk of the Chief Judge of the Northern Distict of Florida where it remained until its end. Anytime I wanted to review the case, it was on his desk. To me that might be considered monumental.

You say that I am rambling. Sorry, but I am not now or will I ever be an attorney. The flow may not be to your liking, but that is just the way I presented it. It is in honest and down to earth form and it does not take a rocket scientist to realize what happened.

Your opinion is well noted, but it still does not change the facts. This case had a lot more merit than you gave it credit for.

Thanks for your time and if there is anything I can do to help clarify my position or if more informantion is desired, please e-mail me at panamaed1@gmail.com

P.S. The part about threats to my life and the IRS Agent being found dead and an IRS Inspector interviewing me in a murder investigation were true. As a matter of fact, I am getting some input from someone on another site that connects here. There aren't any clear threats there, but you have to appreciate the situation to understand sometime just the occurance needs to be considered a threat. Panamaed (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear User Panamaed: I understand that you are talking about the commentary on the talk page for the article on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. What you are driving at is somewhat unclear here. The material about the Harbin case had been removed from the article a while back -- for a variety of reasons, not the least of which that the material was not properly sourced. We couldn't even tell where the case was filed. A citation to a court case is pretty much meaningless without naming the actual court in which the case was heard. Of course, you have now added a piece to the puzzle -- that the case may have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. I just did a search on the online PACER system for that Court for the case number and name you provided, but so far I have not found the case. I did find one or two cases with the name Harbin, but they're not "RICO" cases, and they're not under the case number you just gave me.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that this was a "famous RICO case." If no one has heard of it, how could it be "famous"? I am also puzzled by your statement that the case "had a lot more merit than you [Famspear] gave it credit for." I obviously can have no idea about the merit or lack of merit of the case, since I haven't even located an official record of the case. I simply moved the material from the article to the talk page for discussion.

In any case, Wikipedia might not be the proper place for you to contribute material about your own court case, no matter how important you believe the case to be. To contribute to Wikipedia articles, you should instead look for information from reliable, previously published third party sources. Also, you should consider whether contributing to Wikipedia about your own court case might violate Wikipedia rules on conflicts of interest. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that, but the corporation was never allowed to appear, even though it was seized by the Government. They would not let me represent the interest of a ficticious name Company, Florida Title, the stockholders, or, since the case went on for years, even the dissolved corporation. This same court "made" Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame (an I am in no way saying that I support his cause, appear on behalf of his corporation saying an individual must appear on behalf of a corporation. They just can't have it both ways. The term Panamaed came from a partner of mine that was a crooked preacher, it turned out, and there is a real story there on what I did that caused all of this to occur. I was trying to do right and they ganged up on me. It was the Dixie Mafia I am told and they say I should be glad that I am still alive. That is what makes this case outstanding. That and the fact the case was filed qui.tam. with notice to the Justice Department 90 days before filing the original complaint. They returned it in a plain manilla envelope with no cover letter to let me know they had rejected it. It took three subsequent filings for the court to accept it and was passed around to several judges before it wound up on the Chief Judges desk. It took ten years to get to the Supreme Court and it wound up being a wasted trip. I appreciate your time. Sorry for the confusion, but to say that it is rambling was harsh. The file was a foot thick and in two volumes and had 32 Defendants, 12 Counts and every motion that I filed was with a request for oral arguments due to pro.se. status and all were denied. Never got a hearing. No Discovery Conference, no seizure of assets of defendants that failed to appear. One of the main defendants wrote a letter to the Judge saying that all the documents served to him were a nusance to him and that is why he did not respond. I WAS Panamaed so sayeth the Preacher. It happens so frequently there they have a name for it. Now this is probably rambling on for sure. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamaed (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable person

just overhauled the whole article... could you review it for errors, please? Foofighter20x (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How do we know

I just read the tax protester article and it doesn't seem very neutral to me. How do we know that you don't work for the IRS? Or other government organization, which is dependent on US citizens continuing to pay their taxes. 98.204.240.195 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First, which article are you referring to? There are several articles in Wikipedia on tax protesters.

Second, you may want to review the Wikipedia rule on "Neutral Point of View."

Third, what difference do you think it makes, for purposes of Wikipedia, whether I work for the government? Yes, the government is dependent on people paying their taxes: so what? And, yes, government employees probably do contribute to Wikipedia: so what?

Fourth, I am not a government employee; there is nothing you can do about that.

Fifth, in Wikipedia, an argument that the contributor is biased because he or she works for the government (assuming that this is what you are implying) is simply not allowed. First, it could be considered a personal attack. Second, there is no requirement that a Wikipedia editor be unbiased.

I repeat: There is no requirement that a Wikipedia editor be unbiased. What is essentially required is that each editor put aside any bias when contributing to Wikipedia. Essentially, the texts of articles should be presented in a neutral way. That is quite different from saying that the editor himself/herself must be neutral or unbiased.

Sixth, I am just one editor. I have no unilateral control over Wikipedia content.

Perhaps if you could be a bit more specific. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Need a little common sense wisdom...

The following offices: President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Pres pro tem, Chief Justice. Did these offices come into existance on the day the constitution took effect (i.e., March 4, 1789) and remain vacant; or, did they come into existence when the first holders of those offices, elected to apparently non-existant offices, were sworn in?

If you can, tell me your answer, and whatever it is, please weigh in here. These guys don't get simple logic. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Accounting

Seeing that you are a CPA, perhaps you would be interested in supporting my WikiProject proposal for accounting at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject Accounting.Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Law Barnstar
		I hereby award Famspear the Law Barnstar for his endless efforts in explaining the meaning and legality of various monetary policies and institutions. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Famspear (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting IRS

Thank you so much for getting the entry back to normal. The vandalism in that article was getting out of hand, and I am thankful you fixed it up again. At least it shouldn't have inappropriate vandalism for some time now. 24.107.56.201 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject United States courts and judges

Greetings, friend! Since this proposed project will cover the Tax Court and its judges, I hope you will find it worth supporting. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is now open for business - let's get it organized and outline our tasks! bd2412 T 16:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I sent a former tax professor of mine (who happens to have clerked at the Tax Court) an email asking for help in getting the full list of Tax Court judge names. By the way, can you make Tax protester 861 argument a bit clearer? I thought the argument was deficient because the provision only applied to foreign businesses or something like that, but I may be wrong. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Boy, it's been a while since I've really looked at that article (though it's on my watch list, of course). On the Tax Court judges, are you talking about all current judges, or all judges who have ever served on the Court? Famspear (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Fundamental rights"

Fam- are you not bothered by the fact that "fundamental rights," an article which we have both edited - has been merged into "human rights?" I know I am! Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fifth amendment

Sorry about that! MoodyGroove (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)MoodyGroove

No problem. Famspear (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

State / local burden

Famspear, I had a question that I thought you might be able to answer. In the U.S., do state and local governments deduct their "cost" of income and payroll taxes from any federal burden? Meaning, does state and local revenue cover the federal income and payroll taxes paid to state and local employees, or is this somehow deductible by the state to the fed? Morphh ^(talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I really do not know the answer to that question. My best guess would be no, not that I know of. I am not knowledgeable about this though. I know that generally, the lower the state unemployment tax amount paid by a regular employer to the state, the higher that employer's federal unemployment tax will be.

In states that have state income tax, the state income tax is deductible in arriving at the taxable income amount on the Federal return. In some of those states, the federal income tax is also deductible on the state income return in determining taxable income for state purposes.

But I guess that's not the question you're asking, and unfortunately I don't know the answer. Famspear (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for thinking about it. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 0:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the Movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Russo

I see that you're the top contributor to Aaron Russo. I just discovered that, back in August 2007, the article was replaced entirely with text from another site. http://defendindependence.org/ARM/AaronRussoBiography.HTML I've reverted back to the version before the copyvio. Any edits or additions made in the meantime may need to be redone. I'm not familiar with the topic, but if you need help let me know.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, I can't believe I had missed that. Famspear (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD of UC article

Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

you are a tax lawyer

i am laidoff as of may 2007; in may 2008 i got my tax LLM but couldn'y get a job because in that economy firms wanted 25-27 year old JDs for the ever dwindling slots... i got plenty of call back interviews but the number of opennings shrank... had one promising position on long island disapper as the number of real estate deals dried up; and another spot in philadelphia disppeared as they got gun shy about the economy. LaidOff (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading about the terrible, terrible job market for tax lawyers (and lawyers in general). The law schools have been churning out 'way too many lawyers for many years. Even when I graduated from law school (over 20 years ago), the job market was impossible. So, it's not just the current bad economy. There is an over-supply of lawyers.

I don't post there myself, but there is a web site where tax lawyers go to commiserate: [2]

I have been practicing as a CPA for many years, and I am fortunate not to have to be looking for a job. Famspear (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Montana Freemen

Hi. I see that you worked on Montana Freemen back in June 2007.
That group has been in the news recently and our article has been the subject of some edit wars disagreements.
If you have any interest in taking a look at it...
Have a good one. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Famspear,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive

Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

Thanks! I'll try to do my small part to keep the lunatics from taking over the asylum. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fam, on a similar vein, thanks for all your efforts keeping the loonies and ignorant in check. I've decided I don't have the energy to fight an edit war with them, and am making a list of articles that need work but which I'll stay away from. So, from the less energetic, Thank You. Best regards, Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilson quote

Alas, the IP adding the quote seems to be on a dynamic address, so I suspect it will be added a few more times. I remembered you had dug a bit into that quote in the past, and finally found it in the Federal Reserve Act archives. Made it much easier to explain the reversion. I just added a note to the most recent IP's talk page - if you read the preface for The New Freedom, where the quote is taken from, it's quite clear that it's from the 1912 campaign, just a wee bit before the Act was passed. [3] Made for some interesting reading waiting for some late-night work stuff to complete though! Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Printing Money addition to Federal Reserve System

Please see this discussion regarding these edits ([4],[5],[6],[7],[8]) to Federal Reserve System. You reverted at least one of thses changes - a discussion is taking place per WP:BRD. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your commt on the legality of paper money on the Fed page

You stated as follows

The assertion is that there actually exists a "criticism" as to "whether the the power to print money is even allowed under the US Constitution." Instead of providing material that shows that someone -- someone other than the Wikipedia editor who inserted the material -- has previously raised that particular critique, what the editor is doing is providing material that he or she apparently feels supports the critique itself -- the critique about whether the power to print money is even allowed under the US Constitution."

My response is a quote from a source regarded as "excellent" by other wiki editors

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf

Direct quote from the Abstract "Over a century ago, the Supreme Court decided the Legal Tender Cases, holding that Congress could authorize legal tender paper money in addition to metallic coin. In recent years some commentators have argued with this holding may have been incorrect"

Direct quote from page 4 of that "excellent" source

"In the later half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that upheld the power of Congress to issue paper money and make it legal tender for all debts. Although the last of these was decided in 1884 several constituencies have kept this debate alive. One of those constituencies is a small, but vocal group that has never been reconciled to the idea of American paper money. These folks maintain that the Constitution did not authorize paper money ... More Influential, perhaps, have been legal commentators who agree that the Legal Tender cases were, from an originalist point of view, wrongly decided"

The legal tender cases were Supreme Court rulings which supported "legal tender powers" for Congress with respect to paper money. If they were "wrongly decided" then they were wrong and Congress does not have the power to make paper money "legal tender" 96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Note the exact phrase: "the Legal Tender cases were, from an originalist point of view, wrongly decided." May we take that as concluding the debate? Can we all agree that the "originalist" point of view is absurd, disconnected from reality, something for ideological cranks who are unconcerned with living life on a practical level, and that it has no place among those who are tasked with exercise of sound judgment? Boundlessly (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BD2412/200,000th edit party

You're invited! bd2412 T 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Famspear! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Excise tax

Wondering if you could comment on Talk:Excise_tax_in_the_United_States#Legitimate_Excise_taxes. Looks like your area. Morphh ^(talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

Thank you for your message about Houston Chronicle. In the past there was Houston Post and Houston Chronicle for Houston readers and in a election season when Houston Chronicle wrote half truths to twist their story during election season Houston Post would write a rebuttal. This is election season and Houston Chronicle has a hunting season on politicians' they disagree with by twisting the story with incomplete story. I wrote some example of Chronicle incomplete story on the subject politician and the other person deleted it as spam so I deleted the Chronicle part. Additionally I would appreciate since this election season it would be advisable to lock the pages of politicians in critical races. 1houstonian

Common law

Famspear, we have a crank along the lines of a tax protester who keeps dropping the same junk into "common law." He comes in from different IP addresses. What does one do in these cases? Maybe freeze the whole article for two weeks? Boundlessly (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Famspear, we now have the same silliness at User:Oatmealo/Applied common law Is there a way to disappear this page? Boundlessly (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Self-Published Attack Sites

There is a question over external links to a self-published source (an attack site) on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Sproul,_Jr.

I would appreciate an opinion from an experienced editor such as yourself on whether the external link in question qualifies as a verifiable non-self-published source.

It is in the discussion section, "Links to Docs on Attack Sites".

Thanks, Cadwallader (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

J Stack

Thanks for the contribution. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! Famspear (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Internal Revenue Code talk page: 2006 items

There are many pages of discussion about deletions/reversions from tax protester vandalism in 2006. These may have historical significance to the group (reminding us to be vigilant), but really clutter up the discussion pages. Can they be archived then deleted from the current talk? Thanks for your thoughtful contributions fighting the fringe.Oldtaxguy (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

United States dollar

If you would, could you edit or discuss the "FRNs are not money" and/or "FRNs are not dollars" absurdity there. There's so much to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FAMSPEAR: you undid my factual addition to the Federal Reserve System article, do you offer any explanation as to why?

FAMSPEAR: you undid my factual addition to the Federal Reserve System article, do you offer any explanation as to why? Are you one of these article Nazi's I've heard about? 75.203.6.190 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Allodial title Help

Hi Famspear, I'm a law student and lurker at Quatloos, I also moonlight as an admin here on en-wiki (not much anymore, though). Anyway, I noticed we have an article on Allodial title, which I've seen mentioned before on sovereign websites. Well, I can't find any mention of this "title" or its relevance to the U.S. in a Property casebook (even in the history sections), in Cunningham, Stoebuck, and Whitman's treatise "The Law of Property." Tiffany's Real Property notes the term in contrast to "feudal." From what I can tell, the term "allodial" does exist, but I've not been able to find any separate, modern, extant "title" which would overcome fee simple. So, I'm suspicious of the article, generally. Especially with its relation to the tax protest movement.

Black's mentions the term, noting that the word could be used "synonymously" with "absolute ownership." Anyway, I was hoping you could take a look because you seem quite knowledgeable about these things. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're on the right track. Without looking at the Wikipedia article, I seem to remember from law school that the term "allodial title" is contrasted with the term "tenurial title" (with tenurial title being the kind of title held by the average Joe in England from after the Norman conquest). I'll bet you'd find references to these terms in Bergin & Haskell, Preface to Estates in Land and Future Interests. Many of my older law books (including that one) are in a box somewhere in my garage, and I can't check right now. Anyway, I'll have a look at the article when I get the time. Famspear (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Edward and Elaine Brown article

It is a good source of information. Tisane (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Famspear (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about tax implications of grant-funded incomes.

Famspear, I'm a relatively new editor, but I follow your work on articles such as Tax protester and I think that with your background you may be able to answer my questions. I'm not trying to bum free legal advice off of you or anything - I'm just in an awkward employment scenario that I've never been in before and am curious about the tax implications of my new income.

I live in Texas and I just started working on my MBA International Business in Spring 2010, and around March I began working at my university as a student worker, for which my pay was funded by a College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 grant that the university was awarded. This position only lasted about 2 months, because I landed a position as a Graduate Research Assistant - this position is funded with money from another Title V grant (Title V of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008). These are federally funded grants through the U.S. Department of Education, awarded to the institution I attend. No pay was deducted from my checks as a student worker for Fed. Tax or FICA, and no Fed. Tax or FICA is deducted from my graduate assistant stipend. I actually don't even recall filling out a W-4 with my university.

Additionally, I was recently awarded a TPEG (Texas Public Education Grant) for the summer. I don't know what the tax treatment is for a state funded grant.

I've never earned income from federal or state grants before until now, and my Google queries don't seem to turn up anything helpful - the results mostly allude to the tax implications of scholarships, Pell grants, etc. If your income is derived from a federal grant source, what is the tax treatment?

I hope these questions aren't of any inconvenience. Thank you for your time. It should also be noted that your solid work on Wikipedia does not go unnoticed. When I finally bit the bullet and joined Wikipedia as an editor, I made sure to take note of and follow the editors who set a modest example for others. Keep up the great work. John Shandy` • talk 23:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood tax: request for help battling lobbyists

Famspear, Again thank you for battling the tax protesters. In trying to improve Wiki, I have tagged some articles that are advertisements (e.g., one for a Malay will writing service). I'm getting pushback on Robin Hood tax, written apparently by and about a group in UK that is lobbying for a tax on financial transactions. The WP article is clear advertising, but with some trimmings (weak pro and con) to make it not quite under the spam guideline. My comments were disputed by User:FeydHuxtable, who seems to be an admin. Am I all wet? Please have a look at the article and leave me your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks.Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Two judges per week.

Greetings! At Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges, we have bot-created thousands of articles on United States federal judges. Of those 1,272 currently still have their bot-made cleanup tag. If just a dozen editors will each commit to cleaning up just two of those articles every week, we will conquer the entire list within the year. Most of the articles are quick and easy to clean up, requiring only a few minor adjustments of bot-created awkward wording. Please consider joining this effort, and committing to cleaning up two judges per week for the year. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jury nullification

The other day you deleted a change I made to the jury nullification article. I am not sure about the correct way to change this article so that I can have my question answered so here goes. Because jury nullification can only be used to acquit, how could a prosecutor ever use or seek jury nullification? I understand that the prosecutor may try to get a jury to convict even though they have failed to show the elements of the crime but this is always for the jury to decide. The defendant can nearly always appeal a conviction whereas the prosecutor can not appeal an acquittal. I understand that whomever wrote the comment used a citation but this does not make it legitimate. How do you correct a portion of an article that is strictly speaking logically incorrect or ask someone to clarify their position with reason rather than cite some random text that agrees with their statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.134.249 (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I realize I should have explained my edit at the time I made it. Here is the material that I removed:

This argument is meaningless because jury nullification can only cause an acquittal and therefor has nothing to do with a prosecutor. If a prosecutor decided the defendant should be acquitted they can drop the charges.

That comment was inserted in the article by you, in response to an argument from a source. I deleted the material because it was unsourced and because the material -- especially the "this argument is meaningless" verbiage -- appeared to me to be a critique made only by you yourself, as a Wikipedia editor. Generally, you and I, as Wikipedia editors, should not provide our own critiques in quite this way. Instead, you should look for a previously published third party source who made your argument, and provide a citation to that source -- otherwise, your commentary looks like "Original Research" by a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia policy prohibits original research by its editors.

I agree, though, that your critique has some force, and I realize that the deletion was a judgment call on my part. Famspear (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey Famspear, any new 14th amendment fights in here? Almost boring now without a new one. lolWolfstorm000 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any. I do have that page on my watchlist, though. Famspear (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IRS Chief Counsel

I've noticed that a number of articles refer to this position - eg United States Tax Court, Internal Revenue Service ('doh?), Mitchell Rogovin and various others who have held the position. But, so far as I can see there is no article. Worth creating one? Just a thought.

VinculumMan (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Kudos for maintaining the articles in the whole Tax Protester field in good (NPOV) state. I've just been browsing through them with interest.

Thanks! I can't devote as much time to Wikipedia as I used to, though. I've been editing here (mostly tax articles) since late 2005. I used to average 16 to 17 edits per day in the first couple of years. Tax protesters are a hobby of mine (as you can tell). Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the fascination. At least some of them are smart people, but just seem to be operating in a different universe. VinculumMan (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

You have assembled quite a nice collection of quotes. We'll have to talk about getting them put into Wikiquote. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, old friend! Let me know what's involved..... Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

q:Tax avoidance and tax evasion is an example of a properly formatted Wikiquote page. We have some fairly straghtforward rules for what can be included - quotes that are eloquent, pithy, and generally more than a few words but shorter than the Gettysburg address. bd2412 T 22:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Help request

Please help with project at User:Ravensfire/Taxation in the United States. Your input would be highly valued. Oldtaxguy (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your pretentiousness

I don't appreciate your attitude. You seem to think you are an expert about the law, but there is more to the law than posting the outcomes of court cases. I don't appreciate your editing my text very very quietly, and then trying to misdirect the attention of the discussion group with irrelevant questioning either. You should try to be fair. People would take you more seriously if you let their side of the story be told, rather than just suffocating it as you have been doing in recent weeks. Thanks, but no thanks. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a PA on the Redemption movement talk page that I removed - no purpose for it. A discussion has started on ANI about Visitor10001, and I've left some messages for him. Thanks for jumping into that and the Sovereign citizen movement article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ravensfire. Famspear (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Y'know that guy?

You may know all about this since you're a tax attorney, but remember that editor who was so worked up at Redemption movement and Sovereign citizen? Remember how he kept calling you "an esquire"? Wonder what that was all about? Ready for a laugh? Take a look at Titles of Nobility Amendment. Scroll down to the section titled "Courts". Apparently he thinks you forfeited your citizenship when you started using "Esg." after your name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading about many of these wacky theories for a while now. I'm especially interested in tax protesters. Famspear (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I never said anything about 'esquires' forfeiting their citizenship, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Isn't it funny how easy it is to speak on someone else's behalf? So tell me then, are the Administrative courts operating under 'color of law', or are they not? I have yet to hear an intelligent answer about this from an actual 'attorney'. Visitor10001 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Visitor10001: With that attitude, it would not be surprising if you don't receive any answers at all. The rest of us are not here for the purpose of answering your questions. We are not here to satisfy you that whatever answers we do provide seem "intelligent" to you. Whether our answers are "intelligent" is for us to say -- not for you to say. If you would like to learn about legal matters, I'll be happy to teach you, as time permits. First, your attitude is going to have to change, and the personal attacks are going to have to stop. Famspear (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theory noticeboard

Ouch, just read ANI after reading FTN where we could use some comments from you. Looks like our problematic Visitor doesn't like you. :-) Anyway, we're discussing some of these articles at WP:FTN and could use some input from you. And I'm interested in your comments about a possible merger of Sovereign citizen movement and Redemption movement. --Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to get over there. However, I'm in the middle of doing March 15th extensions (I'm a tax practitioner, and March 15th is a federal corporate income tax filing deadline), so I may not have a lot of time to devote to it at the moment. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are busy, but once you have the time to get back in the full swing here, I think we should try to make as many backup citations as possible to the IRS and ADL materials, and the cited law review articles. It should be fairly easy to argue that what is essentially an IRS FAQ on frequent tax protester arguments is sufficient support for the assertion that these are frequent tax protester arguments. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: Yes, and feel free to remind me again. Things have been hot and heavy lately (in the real world). On top of everything else, as of yesterday (Wednesday March 16) at lunch, my wife reported that our internet and cable TV was out, completely. They've scheduled someone to come out to the house on Saturday. So, my only internet access is at work right now, which limits the amount of time I can spend.

Thanks for your friendship and help all these years, BD2412! Famspear (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Regarding this clarification you made...because the first comma was there in the prior edit, I think it indicated that the previous clause (an attorney) was descriptive in nature. If the text had meant to say he was an attorney since 1982, it would have been more like: ....Thomas E. Harvey, an attorney since 1982... (But...there usually isn't only a single way to word things, so...I haven't messed with your edit.)  Frank  |  talk  02:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Famspear (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Be Welcoming to Newcomers - "Don't Bite the Newcomer"

Dear Famspear

Why so quick to delete the newer copy on Robert Schulz? Ouch.

I left a note just for you that the links and sources were coming. I'm fully prepared to proceed and request permission to pass. Do you have authority over this posting beyond all others?

I have found more information about Schulz and the Foundation that, when added to what is there, presents a more balanced view of what his work has been about. You seem heavily over-focused on the tax issue, when everything he has done is about the Right to Petition. I'm interested in a balanced presentation.

Assume you have no issue with that.

Freedomstriumph (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I was hesitant to revert the whole thing, which I generally would not do, especially where, as you indicated, the sourcing is to be added. However, I noticed that you took out the part about Schulz being under investigation for his personal federal income tax situation and you stated that he was NOT under investigation, which is not only clearly incorrect but also contradicts the statement from the Court that he IS (or at least was in 2006 at the time of the Court decision) most certainly under investigation by the IRS for his personal taxes -- specifically for failing to file his own returns. The fact that you changed the article to contradict something that is both correct and properly sourced and you replaced it with a statement that was clearly incorrect and unsourced is what led me to the action I took.

I would encourage you to line up your sources first, and add the sourcing with the material as you add the material to the article.

By the way, I have been studying Schulz for some years now, and I respectfully disagree with the assertion that "everything he has done is about the Right to Petition." Clearly, he has an agenda regarding the federal income tax which goes far beyond the "right to petition."

I do agree with you that Wikipedia articles should have a balanced presentation, and that some of Schulz's activities regarding the Right to Petition go beyond the income tax. I therefore agree that the article could use some expanding.

And, welcome to Wikipedia! Famspear (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman H. Wolfe

Norman H. Wolfe is a former judge on the U.S. Tax Court. Since you have some particular insight into that body, I thought you might want to weigh in on the deletion debate - I fear that it is spiralling towards a snowball effect that may wipe out all of the articles on Tax Court judges, and perhaps the article listing them also. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for July 2011

United States dollar, a page you have edited recently or significantly contributed too, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for July 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Famspear - Info

This editor is dangerous. All too often he will make statements in which he claims to be speaking for all Wikipedia editors, usually right after removing or watering down your edits. Sadly, his behavior is going on unpunished, and in some cases encouraged. This is not journalism. Famspear's idea of 'trusted 3rd party publishers' include Federal Agencies of the government that publish articles citing zero sources and no authors, and some of which make very outrageous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.172.42 (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that with us. No, I have never claimed to be "speaking for all Wikipedia editors." I am here, however, to explain the rules of Wikipedia. And yes, I and other editors in Wikipedia may "remove" or "water down" your edits. Your edits and my edits, like those of everyone else here, are subject to be "removed" or "watered down" as you put it. You are correct to say that what we do in Wikipedia is not "journalism." As a former broadcast news reporter myself, I would like to point out that our purpose as Wikipedia editors here is not to engage in "journalism," but rather to edit an on-line encyclopedia called Wikipedia. Federal agencies of the government are not required by the rules of Wikipedia to cite their own sources to your personal satisfaction, and there is no rule in Wikipedia that says that a government web page must name the "author" of the material on that page in order for that web page to be used as a source. Indeed, the vast majority of government web pages do not name the "author" of the material on that web page. Whether a given statement made by one Federal agency or another is considered to be a "very outrageous claim" is a matter of your personal opinion. Please review the rules of Wikipedia regarding the use of previously published third party sources. And, no, I am not "dangerous." Please refrain from making personal attacks on your fellow editors. Famspear (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor is NOT dangerous. His behavior should not be punished, but rather, encouraged. Federal Agencies of the government, especially the U.S. government ARE trusted publishers! Who would you prefer, Unsigned IP? Conspiracy blogger websites, perhaps? Famspear was a journalist, an attorney, an accountant, who knows what all else. Why do these people have the temerity to be so rude and challenging to someone who has more than a clue, but rather, a vast wealth of incredibly valuable experience and credentials? Just passing through after some time spent on the Federal Reserve System article ;o) v/r (that's very respectfully, I learned it from a young man on Wikipedia) --FeralOink (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group)

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling "superceding"

Any idea how we can convince Wikignomes, such as User:Chris the speller, that "superceding" may be correct in legal contexts. I've run into that, before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm at work right now, but I have a collegiate dictionary at home that, if I recall, shows both spellings as being correct. I'll check it tonight, if I can remember to do so.

I actually prefer "superseding" over "superceding" -- and I have no idea why, other than that the former seems to be the more common spelling. But of course, when citing a document (whether a legal document or any other kind), I agree that we should spell the word the way it's spelled in that document. Famspear (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Famspear

Your answer to my question on Tax laws in the US was brilliant, thank you Zylog79 (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Famspear (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Living American lawyers

Hi Famspear,

Sorry to take up your time on something that you may consider unrelated to your work on wikipedia. I hope I am not wasting your time.

I have just discovered that Wikipedia appears to have very little coverage of living American lawyers, I think. I came to this conclusion by looking for an intersection between the two categories: American lawyers and Living people by using http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php and coming up with 1129 articles. Then I visually checked out the first twenty on the list and could find none that were known only as brilliant laweyers, most were either college law professors, politicians, or well-known for reasons other than being a lawyer (Anita Hill for example).

I started wondering about this when an article I started about a living lawyer was deleted at WP:AFD and I could not convince anyone involved in the deletion discussion that the subject was notable. After going around and around I decided to try and find articles about lawyers that escaped deletion to learn why they were different, and this is when I realized that I cannot find any.

Anyway, I am not familiar with American lawyers whom the lawyer community looks up to, and was wondering if you could supply some names so I could check out if they have an article at Wikipedia, just to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it has take a while to respond. I am in the middle of tax season (I'm a tax practitioner) and I have other issues I'm dealing with. Hope to get to this at some point. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Message from WRMattison

Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows jurors to stop the conviction of defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when one or more jurors vote Not Guilty contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law. In cases where the entire jury exercises their power of "Jury nullification" the defendant gets a "Not Guilty" verdict and is acquitted of the crime. In cases where less than all of the jurors excercise the power, but those who voted "not guilty" refuse to change their vote the effect is still not a conviction. The latter case is a "Hung Jury" providing the judge's patience has been exhausted with trying to browbeat all jurors into a "Guilty" verdict and calls a mistrial. The prosecution must decide whether to dismiss the case against the defendant or retry him/her with a new jury. In either case, the defendant has not been convicted of the crime that he/she was being tried for and those jurors who voted "Not Guilty" have effected the doctrine of "Jury Nullification." As an added note a judge, who believes that the defendant in a criminal prosecution is not guilty, has the power to simply Dismiss the charge so voting "Guilty" is virtually never a use of Jury Nullification. The power of Jury Nullification of jurors in criminal prosecutions is virtually our last defence against Tyranny before using armed revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrmattison (talk • contribs)

Martin Armstrong trying to edit his own page

Hi Famspear, just to let you know that the I have knowledge that 'Caesar..' is Mr Martin Armstrong himself, trying to edit his own page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_A._Armstrong. His desire is to place his version of the story and then prevent any edits from being made. He is attempting to use content from his autobiography PDF, but is not aware of the copyright approval process.

I have directed him to the following links already, but he is not willing to listen (or even read the pages apparently, because if he did then he would understand what is occurring).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

He believes he is being unfairly vindicated by having his edits rolled back. His plan is to dump on wikipedia in his upcoming movie :(, he did not listen to my careful explanations.

I just felt you should know, since it is likely that he will keep trying to re-edit. I have also advised Bgwhite on the same. If you care to contact me I can give you more background on what I know. Regards, Warren

p.s. please delete this section if you wish to take the discussion offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenJames123 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For cleaning up 1099 OID fraud Ottawahitech (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome..... Famspear (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Whistleblowers' Rap and Usufruct

Dear Famspear ,

I liked your discussion about the psychology of the tax protester and the quotes from Oliver Wendell Holmes on your talk page. I left a modest proposal on the IRS Whistleblower Office talk page about the whistleblowers' rap by Mordy Mandell.

It is in the same vein as the Usufruct poem (October 1, 2010) written by you. I hope you enjoy it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Famspear (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Bill of Rights theory

Thanks for responding to the fringe theory be advocated at here. That position is being advocated also here and here. I would appreciate if you post your comment at the those other two talk pages. Thanks again. SMP0328. (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your stylistic edits to my tax evasion paragraph discussing the IRS' audit selection method. TLAN38 TLAN38 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Famspear (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal reserve Bank

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I re-read the Fed document that I have cited. It says privately owned by member banks (but not for profit). That is exactly what is reported. Please clarify. 81.62.200.13 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what it says. It does NOT says that the Federal Reserve SYSTEM IS privately owned by member banks. You are confused on terminology. The twelve federal reserve BANKS (not the Federal Reserve SYSTEM) are "owned" by the privately-owned "member banks." But it's not "ownership" in the same way that you or I "own" something.

The material CLEARLY STATES THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS NOT OWNED BY ANYONE. This is what your material actually says:

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

[ . . . ]

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

See: [9] This is the material you yourself cited.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE read the material more carefully, especially the material I reproduced in bold type. And read the Wikipedia article carefully. Thanks Famspear (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Your heading for this section shows part of your confusion. A "Federal reserve Bank" is NOT THE SAME as the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. There are 12 Federal Reserve Banks. But the BANKS are not the SYSTEM. The SYSTEM includes both government agencies (which actually control the System) and private banks -- the member banks such as Wells Fargo or Bank of America. The System also includes twelve Federal Reserve banks, such as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Wells Fargo Bank owns "stock" in one of the Federal Reserve banks (presumably the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco). BUT WELLS FARGO DOES NOT OWN the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. And Wells Fargo's "ownership of the San Francisco bank is not "ownership" in the sense that you or I own stock in a company, or you or I own a house or a car.

Ownership in the ordinary legal sense that you're thinking of connotes, usually, some CONTROL and the ability to SELL your ownership of the thing you control. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT when we say that Wells Fargo bank "owns" stock in a Federal Reserve Bank.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY. Thanks.... Famspear (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You read more than I say here. All you state is already known by myself. I just repeated that the FED is owned by private corporations. I did not say "for-profit". I think you are the one who is confused here. Moreover:

"A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank"

No, you're still not getting it. THE FED IS NOT OWNED BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. That's not the case, and that's not what the material says.

The term "the Fed" is shorthand for THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. The Federal Reserve System is not owned by private corporations. READ THE MATERIAL AGAIN. Famspear (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, read the very material you quoted: "A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank". THAT IS CORRECT. That's explained in the article. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WROTE, AND IT IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CLAIM.

Here's what you wrote: ".....the FED is owned by private corporations." THAT IS INCORRECT. A "regional Federal Reserve Bank" and "THE FED" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS NOT OWNED BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, OR BY NON-PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, OR BY PRIVATE ENTITIES, OR BY "PRIVATE" ANYTHING. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS NOT "OWNED."

However, the Federal Reserve BANK of Dallas (or the BANK of New York, or the BANK of San Francisco, etc., etc., -- there are 12 of them) is "owned" by its member banks (which are "private" in the sense that you're thinking of). But that 'ownership" is not the same as you or I "owning" something. Famspear (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Now IP has taken the war to Criticism of the Federal Reserve. -Rrius (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Famspear. You have new messages at Talk:Fractional_reserve_banking.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Over and out

Famspear, I've given up. I've asked to have my account deleted. A couple of delinking Taliban have driven me over the edge. Without links to do some of the jobs of stabilizing the internal links within common law and precedent, I just don't want the task of managing them. And I don't want to have my name affiliated with these articles any more.

You've been a big help, and good colleague. But expertise is no longer valued. Rome is being sacked by vandals and huns. I'm getting out while I can.

Boundlessly (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Patriot2013

Famspear, you had better go back and restudy the law since whatever you have learned, allegedly, is a perfect example of the dumbing-down as so eloquently established by Charlotte Iserbyt in her outstanding book, The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America' It never ceases to amaze me how little most so-called 'critics' of factual statements actually know. In answer to one of the 'critics', the reason that no alleged court has ever made a determination with regard to what I have stated is because no one has ever broached the subject correctly and legally. The ONLY reason that most entities are considered 'taxpayers' is because they filed federal/national papers admitting to be a taxpayer when the form requests a taxpayer signature. Since I do not sign ANY federal/national forms whatsoever that admits to BEING a 'taxpayer' I am not classified by the federal/national government AS A TAXPAYER. Why do you think, that is, if you can think at all, they write me and ask me to fill out forms that would admit that I am a 'taxpayer'?: Because they have no admittance by me that I AM a taxpayer. When an entity fills out any federal/national government forms that entity is entering into a contract with the federal/national government and is then admitting to be under some form of jurisdiction and has thereby granted authority to assess and tax that entity. Before you criticize my writings any further read the Constitution and prove that the federal/national government has ANY form of authority/Jurisdiction over any lawful sovereign. Also read ANY statute and prove to me that I cannot call myself a lawful sovereign: A good example of excellent reading would be the Federalist Papers, the Second Federalist, and the Anti-Federalist Papers to learn and understand exactly what the Founding Fathers intended for the American entity. In addition, I am not a United States citizen since there is no definition for such an entity other than if an entity has volunteered to be such an identification. I am an American and possibly a State citizen but there is even a negative stigma regarding that classification. I do not sign any papers admitting to being a U.S. citizen and I vote and am never questioned with regard to that lack of admission. Every paper that is sent to me with the all capitalization identification is denied by me and is clarified by me in any form of return mailing and I am never questioned. You have been totally dumbed-down as so eloquently and literally noted by Charlotte Iserbyt in her outstanding book, The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America, that combines almost one hundred (100) years of government controlled education and the media in order to keep and maintain an ignorant American society; and it is totally successful. In conclusion, unless you do the research that I have recommended, shut up and toady to the federal/national government that wants to, and is, keeping you dumbed-down so they can steal your property. I dare you to go to CAFR1.com to see that all governments in the united States of America have acquired over one hundred and fourteen (114) trillion dollars of theft of your property for their own personal wealth; and that is only one example of their theft! Patriot201303:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)03:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot2013 (talk • contribs)

Baloney. You people always demand that others read the Federalist Papers, etc. Yet nothing in the Federalist Papers supports the arguments you are parroting.

Being an American citizen has nothing to do with signing papers (if you were born here). This is not rocket science. It's ninth grade civics. If you were born here, you are an American citizen as a matter of law, with only a few exceptions (children of foreigners with diplomatic immunity, etc.).

Capitalizing or not capitalizing words in a document has NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. Come on, fella.

No, I am not the subject of "controlled education and the media."

I don't need your recommendations about how to become educated. Instead, I would suggest that you stop reading the garbage you obviously have been reading for years, and that you learn about the history of the U.S. federal income tax. I can teach you about that. Famspear (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Pepperchovy

Hi, Thanks for the warning you put on User:Pepperchovy's page regarding edit warring. I have been trying to help him/her understand WP but he/she doesn't seem to want to listen and has resorted to name calling [10] [11]. If he/she reverts again it may be time for a sanction. But I'll let you be the judge. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Spread the orangeness

Orange Mike | Talk has given you a glass of orange juice! OJ promotes WikiLove and hopefully this glass has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of orange juice, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just someone who looks thirsty. Happy drinking!

Spread the orange-ness by adding {{WikiOJ}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Have an excellent new year! I'd offer you your very own gold-fringed flag to decorate your office, if one was available as WikiLove; but we're among the few here who would understand it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'd rather have the orange juice, anyway! Thanks, and best of fortune to you in the new year! Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Backtalk

Hello, Famspear. Once again it is alleged that you have new messages at RiverStyx23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

More protester fun

Have a look-in at Wikipedia:Help desk#OPPT. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve

Hello Famspear. After Riessgo directed that hostile remark at you, I had a look at his user history. You may wish to do the same before you continue interacting with him. I will be ignoring him. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

Dear Famspear, I am writing so that you can read the article for the American Academy of Financial Management

I am actually glad you have finally intervened because the article is so bad "as it is". This article simply needs to have an editor or two who have some basic knowledge in the professional designation world about companies such as CFP, CFA, and also AAFM.

As you are highly credentialed by AICPA and other doctorate degrees and licenses, then you may actually understand the financial credential world. Thus, you can probably allow the article to be cleaned up and expanded very quickly.

The AAFM has offered financial designations for over a decade and the AAFM offers no degrees but rather recognizes the top business degree programs as accredited by the AACSB and ACBSP. The article is not neutral but it is somewhat misguided and contains many mistakes. The AAFM also has a ABA Accredited Law School offering AAFM certified courses, but that is not allowed to be added either?

The first sentence is criticism about the AAFM offering degrees, which of itself, is false and not even legal statement. The AAFM and the US government, eFinancialCareers, the FINRA and the Wall Street Journal outline on their websites the standards and requirements for certifications from the CFP Board, The CFA Institute and the AAFM; however, the editor will not allow these contributions to be added.

All I am asking is that you or somebody else allow other contributors to add links and references from the US government, FINRA.org Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, US Accreditation Agencies, other major news outlets etc.

Based on a review of the article, the senior editors have not compromised nor allowed contributions to the article.

Wallstreetlady (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)WallStreetLadyWallstreetlady (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal

Discussion opened at WP:NOR. Federales (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Direct Tax

Greetings...I do not know about the Supreme Court case you are speaking about. All I know is that the way the Direct Tax section is written is in conflict with the General meaning section:

"a direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person(juristic or natural) or on property, as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. In this sense, indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs. People have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax (in the general sense) is imposed upon a person...

Maybe the correction should be made to the General meaning section? Regardless, I would hope you see that some effort needs to be made to bring them into agreement. I am unemployed and without money or insurance, I do not see how it is anything but a direct tax that I can escape on my person...however if in spite of my logic if it is an indirect tax then of course it should be reflected in the meaning found in the General meaning section. Regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.159.67 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no need to "correct" the "General" meaning. How many times does this have to be explained?

Read the article! There are TWO different meanings of the term "direct tax" in the article: (A) the general meaning, and (B) the U.S. Constitution meaning. The Supreme Court ruling relates to the U.S. Constitution meaning, not the general meaning. ALL THIS IS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED IN THE ARTICLE.

Yes, you do know the Supreme Court case. You keep deleting the word "not" from the very same sentence that cites that very Supreme Court case. The case is cited right there at the end of the sentence you keep altering. You are trying to falsify a Wikipedia article that reports on what the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled. I even posted the quote from the Supreme Court decision on your talk page, and you persisted in altering the article to falsify the article. Famspear (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the footnote at the end of the sentence in the article -- the sentence that you keep changing! That's the court case I have already quoted to you on your talk page! Famspear (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I understand now, two meanings, one a general meaning (i.e. the real meaning) and a "second" (special secret meaning for government types and their minions, which only they can comprehend) meaning to justify whatever the government wants to do. Got it...loud and clear...thanks for using the capitalization, nice touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.159.67 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just in an unusually grumpy mood.

I think you're still confused, though. It's not a question of any "special secret meaning" and it's not for "government types and their minions." And it's not something that only certain people can understand. And it has nothing to do with "justifying" something.

Terms have different meanings. Get a good collegiate dictionary and look up the word "run," for example.

In economics and law, it's the same. A word can have one meaning in economics and another meaning in law. Indeed, the same word in the legal world can have more than one meaning when it's used twice in the same sentence -- as is one particular word in one sentence in the United States Constitution.

In modern American constitutional law, the term "direct tax" means essentially only two things: a tax on property by reason of its ownership (essentially, an ordinary property tax), and a capitation (a flat tax, a flat dollar amount, imposed on each person). All other taxes come under the category of "duties, imposts, and excises" (a category that is sometimes just called "excises", or "indirect taxes").

Today, there are no "direct taxes" imposed under U.S. federal law -- no true property taxes, and no capitations. There are property taxes, but they are imposed at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

The case cited in the article was about, among other things, whether the section 5000A penalty, the "shared responsibility payment" (what some people call the "individual mandate") under the Obamacare laws, is a "direct tax" or not -- in the U.S. Constitution sense, not the "general" sense. The Supreme Court ruled that the section 5000A penalty is not a "direct tax."

You have been changing the article to falsely say that the Supreme Court had ruled, in the Obamacare case, that the section 5000A penalty was a "direct tax." Famspear (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and contrary to what you wrote, there is no such distinction between a "real meaning" and "another" meaning. The U.S. constitutional law meaning of "direct tax" is just as real as the "general" meaning of "direct tax." Similarly, all the meanings of the word "run" that are found in the dictionary are real meanings of the word "run." People don't spend thousands and thousands of dollars to litigate court cases over "meanings" that aren't "real." Famspear (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

AAFM - FYI

As noted here, the following has been posted online and a rough facsimile was emailed to the functionaries email list earlier this week, and then forwarded to the Foundation legal department.  Frank  |  talk  04:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglas Shulman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Executive Office Building (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Note to myself: The "bot" is incorrect. I did not add the link. I merely corrected the coding for an existing link apparently intended by another editor. However, since it does appear that the link goes to a disambig page, I have since removed the link. Famspear (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exempt income, codified legal definition

Greetings, old friend. I saw Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exempt income, codified legal definition posted at WikiProject: Law and thought you would be the one to tell whether there is something here worth making into an article. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, hello back to you, my oldest friend in Wikipedia! Actually, the draft would have to be completely re-written. It references a Treasury Regulation under section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and that really would not be the logical place to start.

The logical place to start would be a brief analysis of Code section 61, followed by a treatment of sections 101 through 140. Then, you could add a mention of numerous other places in the Code where specific kinds of income that would otherwise be part of "gross income" under section 61 are excluded (exempted). (The list is long.)

In short, while we could certainly write an article on exempt income under U.S. federal income tax laws, we would definitely not want to start with this material.

Just my 2 cents worth! Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this might be an effort on the part of its author to begin a Tax protester 861 argument. bd2412 T 01:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't want to say anything, but that could well be what it is. Famspear (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case I will go ahead and plagiarize your comment above as an initiation of a discussion on this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Famspear (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats

Please don't shoot me; I'm the messenger. In case you've not seen it already at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management, I'm here to let you know about this page; it seems a thoroughly frivolous complaint, but it still might be worth your attention, since you are named in the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I saw that the other day. It's nonsense. Famspear (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your comment on Talk:NWO regarding Voopmeister, the authority on international conspiracy theories. I have just been through one of real life's rough patches and needed a good laugh. I haven't laughed that hard in a while. I'm so glad I hadn't sipped my drink or I'd have certainly power-washed my monitors. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 16:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, my family and I are going through a rough time right now -- we have a son with a disability and he's having serious problems. Humor (or, in my case, what passes for humor) is often a reaction when times are tough! Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Another one for your collection.

Capitis deminutio has seen various editors attempting to add information (of course, unsupported by sources) to the effect that the capitalization or lack thereof of one's name has a legal effect, and that this is related to admiralty and banking law. I have reverted those additions for now, but would not be surprised to see them pop up again. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it to my watch list! Famspear (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking, money creation.

Famspear, I posted this on the above pages and you, or others have deleted it. I posted it in an appropriate place on the page, is it part of your job to censor well researched material ? It is based on extensive research, documents supplied by the Bank of England ? Book "Where does money come from ?" by the New Economics foundation. You say "The authors here are providing a description of how it works, not a criticism of how it works." It is supposed to be a criticism of the money multiplier model, showing it to be currently inaccurate in the UK ! I have little knowledge of how things work in the USA, so do you have extensive knowledge of how things work here in the UK ?

• Where does money come from? by Andrew Jackson,Richard Werner,Tony Greenham,Josh Ryan-Collins (12 December 2012) produced by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) based on documents supplied by the Bank of England, claims that the growth in money supply in the UK was based on commercial banks willingness to lend up to 2007 (before the start of the financial crisis), and that interest rates and the reserve requirement had little effect in restraining lending between 1997 and 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandsby (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I delete the material because I believed it was not a critique of Fractional Reserve Banking. However, I found this material in the article you cited:

More sophisticated versions bring in the concept of ‘fractional reserve banking’. This description recognises that banks can lend out many times more than the amount of cash and reserves they hold at the Bank of England. This is a more accurate picture, but is still incomplete and misleading.

So, I was wrong. There is, more or less, a critique of fractional reserve banking in the cited material, after all.

In Wikipedia, anything you contribute can be deleted or modified by another editor. That's an essential part of the process. It's not "censoring" (at least, not in the sense that most people use the term).

Because I agree that there was a critique in the material after all -- a criticism that I missed -- I'll re-insert the material. Famspear (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the re-instatement. My Wikipedia editing skills are limited, I have been trying to cite material, I need to spend some time learning the editing process. Money creation and fractional reserve banking is obviously a hot topic, and it is correct that recent views and evidence are presented.

Can we get this in as well because it is related material ? Credit to editor Reissgo for it.

Other economists express doubts about the money multiplier model and banks lending out "reserves"

Standard & Poor's chief global economist describes the Money Multiplier Model as a "defunct idea": http://2joz611prdme3eogq61h5p3gr08.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SP-Banks-Cannot-And-Do-Not-Lend-Out-Reserves-aug-2013.pdf

Michael Kumhof, Deputy Division Chief, Modelling Unit, Research Department, International Monetary Fund said "the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected”.

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England 2003 to 2013 said “Textbooks assume that money is exogenous.” … “In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous”. Professor Charles Goodhart CBE, FBA, ex Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England said of the money multiplier model: “It should be discarded immediately”.

Professor David Miles, Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England said “The way monetary economics and banking is taught in many, maybe most, universities is very misleading”.

Senior Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1969, said “In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later”.

JP Morgan Chase, Global Data Watch: "In spite of being almost totally divorced from reality, the money multiplier is still taught in undergraduate economics textbooks, with much resulting confusion." http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/JPM_Global%20Data%20Watch_Money-Multiplier.pdf

Brandsby (talk) 12.37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The material you cited generally appears to be from reliable sources. I encourage you to study the Wikipedia rules, especially those on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research, and to continue your work in Wikipedia.

On a side note: Without reading all the material, I would say that it appears that the material is largely (but perhaps not completely) correct. Material can have errors in it, and still be considered a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.

Also, please bear in mind that this process (adding material on how banking really works) is a continuous, long term activity in Wikipedia articles on banking. You are by no means the first person to "discover" some of the intricacies of how banking works.

From time to time, you may also run across certain people who write that the inner workings of banks are, for lack of better terms, deep dark nefarious secrets held by evil international banksters. If you run across material like that, bear in mind that the inner workings of banks are not really "secrets", any more than the intricacies of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code are "secrets." It's not that evil people are trying to "hide the truth." What some untutored people view as a "secret" about banking is often nothing more than specialized knowledge that can be obtained through specialized study or specialized experience in banking. I point this out only because you may run across writings of that kind as you study banking. Famspear (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bank of England does not have a manual saying, "This is how money is created". There are many economic theories which do not reflect reality. I approach the subject from looking at all available evidence, and looking at the evidence that others have found. I prefer to keep emotion out of it. It is probable that a few bankers have behaved badly in the recent past, but that does not make all bankers or the activity of banking bad. The "privilege that commercial banks have in creating nearly all money in the economy when they make loans" is generally accepted by most observers, and again it is a matter of opinion whether this is best for the economy and society as a whole, and that this should be allowed to continue, or the central bank (free from political influence) should issue debt and interest free money to be spent into the economy. (See monetary reform ). People who hold this view see the present system of money and banking at fault, rather than individuals within in it. It serves no useful purpose to call people "banksters", even when they profit from the present system. Brandsby (talk) 15.58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and feedback

Thanks for making some improvements to the Rodolphus Allen Family Private Trust article. My writing style is pretty poor and I'm just looking for feedback on the article. Do you have any other suggestions on how the article could be improved? I'd take it you have some experience in dealing with advocates of pseudo-legal theories and other such nonsense. CivisHibernius (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been studying tax protester scams in the United States for about 14 years, and I began in Wikipedia in late 2005 by working mainly on that topic. The study of the so-called Sovereign citizen movement in the United States has been an outgrowth of that interest.

I don't have any specific suggestions right now about the Rodolphus Allen Family Private Trust article, but I've added it to my watch list. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Drafting a tax-related article.

I am working on User:BD2412/Repatriation tax holiday, and thought you might have some insights. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know much of anything about the topic, but I'll keep my eyes open for more source material on that. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice on encouraging editor interest in CFPB page

Hello Famspear

I work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I noticed that you had a number of constructive edits on the Federal Reserve and FDIC wikipedia pages. I wanted to get your advice on attracting some knowledgeable and constructive editors to take an interest in the CFPB's wikipedia page. Perhaps being a new agency, we haven't received the same attention from the wikipedia community as the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and others. Since we have a conflict of interest, no one at the Bureau has edited the CFPB page, but we did add a few suggestions in the talk page.

Any advice or editors that you'd recommend getting in touch with?

Much appreciated.

Ryan.CFPB (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Economics / Progressive tax discussion

Famspear, due to your background in taxation, I'm wondering if you might add additional discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Progressiveness_versus_amount_of_tax. The insertion of the material in several articles has been a point of contention for the past year and it's becoming disruptive. We're starting to go in circles and I think we probably need some fresh voices / eyes on the matter to form a proper consensus as to the best way to address it. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 15:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please help me understand: Does WP:CANVASS apply here? MilesMoney (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No - Famspear is an expert in the area of taxation and I rarely interact with him. He's no one's meat puppet. We're not getting the response on the economics page that I had hoped we'd get, so I was trying to get some more experts involved. Morphh ^(talk) 03:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of his expertise, singling him out this way sure does look like canvassing. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the appearance - that was not my intent. This falls within Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate_notification. I also requested assistance from User:BD2412 and I was considering other editors as well. I was reaching out to editors that are respected, impartial, and experienced that have not participated but have the background to add to the discussion. User:Arthur Rubin came to mind next - feel free to ping him. I thought it better to first request review from such editors, rather than open it up in an RfC to those with no background or understanding of the subject matter. If I were just looking to increase support, my first notifications would be to prior editors that have weighed in on the topic, like User:Gabbe and User:Wnt. Morphh ^(talk) 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester conspiracy arguments#Some challenged points

Please have a look. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Taxation question

Greetings Famspear. It so happens that I have a stray 403(b) account that is not doing much of anything. I am considering rolling it into my 401(k), which I understand I can do without any taxation on the withdrawal event. However, I am also considering paying tax on it and putting it into a Roth IRA. In my searching, I have not been able to find a clear answer as to whether it would be double-taxed (once for the early withdrawal, and a second time for the contribution to the Roth IRA). If you could shed some authoritative light or at least point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. This stray 403(b) has a rather low balance - it's something I acquired once through a part-time job that I had frankly forgotten about, but should now put to better use (it earns next to nothing in its current situation). John Shandy` • talk 23:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear John Shandy': Section 403(b) plans and Roth IRAs are not things I deal with normally, so what I say shouldn't be considered authoritative unless I do some research first. My first impression would be that you would be taxed only once. You withdraw funds from the 403(b) plan and you're taxed, for federal income tax purposes, on that event.

The second step -- of putting the funds into a Roth IRA -- should probably be considered just like any other contribution to an IRA. The contribution would be non-deductible for federal income tax purposes.

I have a fairly recent (year 2008) authoritative reference book of over a thousand pages on the topic of federal income taxation of compensation (including material on 403(b) plans and Roth IRAs), but I'd have to get back to you later on whether I can find anything else in that guide that would be helpful to your question. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, as always. I think what you're saying makes sense. The taxation is based on how it factors into income. I think this is consistent with other things I have read thus far, although they were more ambiguous than your explanation. John Shandy` • talk 03:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Famspear. You have new messages at Eleventhblock's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FRB drive-by tagging user

Pretty sure it's a AmourReflection (talk · contribs) returning, already filed a SPI on them. Ravensfire (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Juilliard v. Greenman

Hi, I noticed you editing Juilliard v. Greenman, and judging from the discussions here, you have a bit of knowledge in that subject matter. Would you be interested in expanding the "decision" portion of it? It's a little odd that the decision section is a single sentence, while the dissent section is four paragraphs.

I'm a patent & IP lawyer, so this isn't quite my bailiwick (by edit was a typo correction), but I might take a stab at it along the same lines I would have briefed a case in law school, but I thought I'd give you a ping on it. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Healthcare

Wondering if you might be able to add a brief overview to Tax_policy_and_economic_inequality_in_the_United_States#Healthcare with regard to deductions, credits, penalties that are implemented in our tax code, which are intended to increase affordability and reduce inequality. Morphh ^(talk) 16:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman

Let the good times roll. Keep up the good work over there!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dissenting Judgment(s)

Just an FYI: in English law at least the term "dissenting judgment" is exactly what use to refer to what you call a "dissenting opinion". A quick search of easily accessible cases turns up more than a thousand examples of its use, including by our highest court in that sense. You might argue that we are all wrong to use that term, but I think you go too far in suggesting that it can't be used "by definition". After all, you could argue that judges give judgments not opinions.

I've left your edit alone because it is probably clear the way around you have it. Francis Davey (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I was being too ethnocentric -- I haven't read English court opinions since law school, and those were cases from the 1700s. I'll clarify in the article.... Famspear (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Most of our students wouldn't understand cases from the 1700s (or, in some cases, from the 1900s :-). Francis Davey (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Taxing_of_persons_who_are_neither_citizens_nor_residents_of_the_United_states.

Hello, Famspear. You have new messages at Talk:Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Taxing_of_persons_who_are_neither_citizens_nor_residents_of_the_United_states.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your time. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! See explanation at talk page for the article. Famspear (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to try and remember to ask you again when tax season is over (is it ever? :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 IRS scandal

It has been proposed that the name be changed to to remove the term "scandal" from the article title. You have peviously participated in talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series

I've already put the IP from this article up at WP:AIV. If his edit summary from earlier doesn't warrant an immediate block I don't know what does. Meters (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point..... Famspear (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve

Hello Famspear. Just in case you are not aware, the IP recently on Fractional Reserve pushing the criticism bit is, per WP:DUCK a sockpuppet of a banned user. He's harmless in small doses but sometimes goes berserk and needs to be tamed. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Famspear. You have new messages at Mabeenot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Glenn Unger

Hi, I've got something that you might be interested in. Would you care to write an article on this former child star and recently convicted "sovereign citizen movement" tax cheat? Details here. Wikipedia also already has a snippet of information on this subject at Redemption movement#Sam Kennedy (Glenn Unger), although this is now out of date. Let me know - if you're not interested, I'll put it on my own to do list. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, old friend! I'm aware of Glenn Unger and I have been following his story for a while. I don't have the time to start an article now, but if you start one on Unger I would love to contribute. Famspear (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have created Draft:Glenn Unger, and made a start with some material there. bd2412 T 04:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bump. bd2412 T 15:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have moved Glenn Unger to mainspace. Please check and see if there is anything you want to add. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Just a note to say hello because it seems we have a lot in common, and WP is sometimes a nice way to meet folks. I'm not currently practicing law due to a long-term illness but I do keep up my license. I spend more time over at Commons than here on WP these days because I don't have the energy to argue with people about trivial things. Seems there's always someone who knows less than you do ready to revert your edits or argue non-notability or other such nonsense. I would like to see a statistical wordcount comparison of discussions vs. actual number of words in (or added to) articles. Rather, I wonder what the ratio is. 10:1? 20:1? 100:1? 1000:1? Please keep up the good work on WP, wish I could do more. Anyway, just wanted to say hi. Laura1822 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your agenda?

You are clearly section blanking. If you want to refine an article or section, fine, but you won't accomplish your goal by being a revert warrior. Lulaq (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lulaq: You are way out of line. The article talk page (Talk:State Bar of Texas‎) is the place for discussion about improving articles. User talk pages should not be used to attack editors. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lulaq: No.

I reverted or deleted material that you inserted in the article on State Bar of Texas -- material that was clearly inappropriate under Wikipedia rules. I have already explained why the material was inappropriate. Other editors have explained this too you, as well.

No, I am not a "revert warrior." You, however, have now been blocked for edit warring (not by me, but by an administrator) in that very same article. By contrast, I have never been blocked from editing in Wikipedia -- not even once in eight and a half years -- and that's because I follow the Wikipedia rules.

My "agenda," my "goal," is to edit in Wikipedia as I have been doing -- for eight and a half years.

And, as editor Johnuniq has pointed out to you, attacking other editors is yet another violation of the rules. Famspear (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Finding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress (H.Res. 574; 113th Congress), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tea Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman (again)

Hi,

Please take a look at Talk:Steve Stockman#Recent edits. Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

FRB vote

Hi, I'm contacting everyone that contributed to the fractional reserve talk on banks as intermediaries because I added a little vote request as to how to proceed. Your input would be most welcome. Reissgo (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Cracking the Code

Dear Dscotese: At the talk page on jury nullification, you wrote:

• "Taxable Income" can only mean what a person gets by exercising some kind of federal privilege, so those who exercise no such privilege are not liable for the tax.

No, that is incorrect as a matter of law. And, as noted elsewhere, that position has been rejected by every single court that has considered it. No exceptions. We’ll get to that below.

I've seen no such cases. Can you add a link? Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But first, you also wrote:

When this position appears in the list of positions determined by the secretary to be frivolous, then I will have to find another way to avoid supporting the criminal organization we call "the federal government."

Ah, your commentary is not about what the law is. This is about your search for some rationale for not paying federal income tax.

Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson and other protesters do the same thing. Hendrickson has admitted that he refused to file federal income tax returns for sixteen years under a completely different nonsensical theory – long before he ever came up with his “Cracking the Code” nonsense:

On his web site, Hendrickson has disclosed that he had a history of sixteen years of non-filing of federal income tax returns prior to the time of his first conviction in 1992. According to information filed by the Department of Justice in Hendrickson's latest criminal case [ . . . ], Hendrickson's contentions regarding the federal income tax have changed over time. After he was released from prison, Hendrickson allegedly filed tax returns that accurately reported his wages and income, but he altered the jurat (the "under penalty of perjury" language near the signature space) on his tax return to show his disagreement with the income tax on wages. According to the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service began refusing to accept Hendrickson’s returns beginning with the year 2000 return, as a document with an altered jurat has been held by the courts not to be a valid federal income tax return.

--from Hendrickson’s dossier (copyright by Daniel B. Evans, excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine).

Like other tax protesters, Hendrickson has hopped around from one theory to another, as it suited him.

I realize that he has made mistakes. Sometimes people who make mistakes also find truth. Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Hendrickson has not found "truth." See, I can do it too.... Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You wrote:

If you'd like to help, something more concrete than "that is utter nonsense" would be better.

OK.

First, let’s look at examples of Hendrickson’s "government privilege" nonsense – from his own writings:

".....unprivileged, outside-of-federal-geographical-jurisdiction work cannot be taxed indirectly by the federal government." ---From p. 10, Peter E. Hendrickson, Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America (12th Printing, Jan. 2010).

".....private-sector proceeds of work (in particular) cannot be taxed under an 'income' tax." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from p. 25, Cracking the Code.

".....'income', 'wages', 'self-employment income', 'employee', 'employer' and 'trade or business' – as these and certain other terms are used within, and in regard to, the tax law – have narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from introductory material, Cracking the Code.

".....the law doesn't apply the income tax to his or her [an individual's] non-federally-connected earnings....." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from his "Cracking the Code" web site forum.

All that is false – every bit of it.

First, let’s look at court decisions on the “privilege” nonsense that pre-date “Cracking the Code,” and then we’ll look at some of the “Cracking the Code” decisions.

Cases pre-dating Hendrickson’s Cracking the Code nonsense:

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has stated: "There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors." See Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), at [12].

Hendrickson makes no claim to the contrary. You may have missed the definitions in Title 26 of "taxpayer" or the Classification Act of 1923, or both.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, and have posted the answer to this on your talk page. I haven't "missed" anything. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In United States v. Buras, the argument that the taxpayer can be subject to an excise tax (specifically, the federal income tax) only if he benefits from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980), at [13]. This is the very earliest court case I have found where anyone raised the “privilege” argument.

I read that section of the case. Although there is a sentence that says "He argues that he can be subject to an excise tax only if he benefits from 'any sort of privilege extended by a government agency.'," the court does not address that claim. Thanks for pointing it out, as it is quite telling.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

NO, it's not "quite telling." In a court of law, the court does not need to "address the claim" in order to rule against it. In Buras, the court's action -- of mentioning the claim and then rejecting it by ruling against the party making the claim, is enough to establish a ruling, a holding, on that claim. This is particularly the case where the claim is frivolous, as it was in the Buras case. This is another tired Hendrickson argument -- that "it doesn't count" if the court didn't say something in just the exact way Hendrickson argues that it should be said. Sorry, but that's not how the law works. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 320 (D. Minn. 1983), at [14] (...."the plaintiffs' position that they are entitled to a complete [federal income tax] refund because they received no governmental privileges during the tax year is without merit....")

In this case, the plaintiffs made a claim "that they are entitled to deduct their entire income as a 'cost of labor'". This claim indicates that what they received was income, and therefore taxable. The court then proceeds to rely on the same error you made above, that in Buras (above), the court rejected the "privileged activity" requirement (which they mentioned and did not reject.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as explained above, the court DID reject the argument. There was no error, and the court is required by some imaginary Dscotese/Hendrickson rule to say things in just the way you and Hendrickson contend things should be said. You don't make the rules, and neither does Hendrickson. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9208 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), at [15].

The court explains: "All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages...". Notice the use of the statutorily defined term, "wages." It is an important word. But you must know this - you read the book, didn't you?Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You must know, eh, that I have been studying Hendrickson far longer than you have. Eh? And, you obviously haven't caught on to the import of the use of the statutorily defined term "wages." Because its use here doesn't help your argument -- it actually hurts your argument. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), [16].

Holker made an "attempt to deduct his wages as his cost of labor on Schedule C," again providing the court with an admission that he had (statutorily defined) wages. Perhaps you can begin to see how the definitions spread throughout Title 26 are used to deceive people into providing presumptive evidence of their liability and leaving them without enough knowledge to correct the record.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is more CtC nonsense -- that somehow using the term "wage" has some sort of magical effect in the form of an admission that the person using the word has "admitted" that he had "statutorily defined wages" in the way HENDRICKSON defines that term. There is no such rule. And no, definitions are not spread throughout title 26 in an effort to "deceive" people. You have been reading tax protester literature such as Hendrickson's nonsense. We've seen all that before. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), at [17] ("This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous [ . . . ] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.")

Olson also filed a "Schedule C profit or loss statement in which Olson offset the wages he received by a greater amount of 'cost of labor'". The Sch. C, being part of a signed affidavit, is stronger evidence than the letter and his assertion of "incorrect" on his W2s, therefore making him first contradict himself, and second, providing the court with evidence that he had earned wages and was attempting to deduct "cost of labor" from them.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. A schedule C is not part of an "affidavit." A FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN IS NOT AN AFFIDAVIT. I repeat, A FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN IS NOT AN AFFIDAVIT. An affidavit is a written sworn statement. A federal income tax return is not a sworn statement. A federal income tax return is a statement made UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY. An affidavit and a statement made under penalties of perjury may have similar legal effects, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. This is a persistent error by tax protesters. Again, I can tell that you have been reading tax protester literature.

Further, the fact that something is included in an affidavit or in a statement made under penalties of perjury does NOT necessarily make the statement "stronger" evidence in the sense in which YOU are thinking. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985), at [18] (Taxpayer's argument -- that because he "enjoys no grant of privilege or franchise", he is not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected. A penalty was imposed for engaging in frivolous litigation.)

What you've quoted is one of eight allegations that May made in his complaint. The court determined his complaint was frivolous, saying, in the first paragraph of the "Background" section, that "On July 22, May filed an amended petition contesting the deficiency determination in which he asserted, inter alia, that he is not subject to federal income tax because the Internal Revenue Code contains no definition of "income"; that his income for these years was derived solely from wages." Notice again the effect of using a statutorily defined term when dealing with the courts.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Note again that you don't seem understand the legal import of what you are reading. The statement I made is precisely correct. Notice again that you still don't understand he effect of using a statutorily defined term when dealing with the courts. Famspear (talk)

See also Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), at [19] (Taxpayer's argument -- that an excise such as the federal income tax may be imposed only on "government granted privileges" was rejected.)

This is another good case demonstrating the attempt to hide the privilege requirement. Notice that when the court addresses the arguments of Coleman and Holder, it says nothing about privilege, but only "These are tired arguments. The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional." The court does not say "No privilege need be exercised for liability to arise." Interesting, eh?Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, not interesting. What do you think of that, eh? Again, the court does not need to say things in a certain way that satisfies you. You obviously have been to law school. You obviously do not understand how to use these legal materials. And you obviously have been reading Hendrickson's nonsense. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam), at [20] (Taxpayer's argument -- that because he was a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government", he was not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected.)

"Courts uniformly have rejected as frivolous the arguments that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable income, ..., or that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege." Not and but or. And if you read the cases cited, you will see that indeed, the courts never specify that the privilege requirement is incorrect. The do list it as a claim being made by the defendants, but they never deny it, as I've shown above. The Olson court is interesting in that they misinterpreted the Buras case the same way you did. There are several cases that do that, but so far, each of the defendants has provided other evidence that made their claims fail.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not misrepresent the Buras case, and neither did anyone else. You are still hung up on this idea that the courts have to "specify" things in just the way Hendrickson wants in order for the rulings f the courts to "count" against his nonsense. You are wrong. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986), at [21] (Taxpayer's argument -- that because she "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government", she was not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected.)

Schedule C again. Perhaps the strategy all these folks were following was planted by the tax-parasite community in an effort to taint the privilege requirement by association with this frivolous deduction of "cost of labor." Well-played, I say, though pretty sick in that parasitic way, if it was intentional.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Schedule C again. Now, you've slipped into the "parasite" language -- more typical tax protester rhetoric. And, it exposes some of the underlying motivation you people have. You're not really looking for truth. You're trying to formulate a "rationale" for not paying taxes, and you consider the government to be parasitic, etc. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Prout v. United States, 31 Fed Appx. 624, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,304 (10th Cir. 2002) (not for public.)

Not for public? How did you get it? How can I see it if it isn't for the public?Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Explained on your talk page. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some Cracking the Code cases:

Joseph Alan Fennell was a follower of the Cracking the Code tax scam. Fennell was a poster at the lost horizons web site. Fennell's arguments — that the compensation he received in exchange for non-federally privileged private sector labor was not taxable, and that non-federally privileged private sector labor is not the subject of an excise (the U.S. federal income tax) — were rejected by the United States Tax Court. See Fennell v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26285-07L, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (June 17, 2008).

Joe was not arguing a CtC issue in his Tax Court case-- he was attempting to challenge an old assessment concerning a year prior to CtC being published, and for which he had ignored a notice of deficiency when it was issued long before ever hearing about CtC. Joe went into Tax Court arguing only that the ignored NOD was defective, and lost.Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rusty Ragan was another poster at the losthorizons web site. In his Cracking the Code case, he argued that he was due a federal tax refund because his compensation constituted "earnings for private-sector, non-federally-privileged work" that he had performed as an engineer for his employer. The Tax Court ruled that the argument was "frivolous and groundless," and imposed a separate penalty of $5,000 under section 6673 for engaging in frivolous litigation. Ragan v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11966-08L, United States Tax Court, Order and Decision (Feb. 19, 2009).

I can't find this case anywhere. Did Ragan ever rebut the information returns that alleged he had earned "income"?Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a U.S. Tax Court case. And it matters not whether Ragan attempted to "rebut the information." This is more Hendrickson nonsense. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In yet another Cracking the Code case involving an individual named David Nelson, the magistrate judge (and the U.S. district court) stated: "The fact that Northwest [Nelson's employer] is a 'private sector company, which is not owned or operated on behalf of the United States' [ . . . ] is immaterial to the question of whether the remuneration Northwest paid Nelson for his work was 'compensation for services' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1). It clearly was." Nelson v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-00508-MCR-EMT, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Dec. 7, 2009), aff'd, No. 10-10730, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Aug. 12, 2010) (unpublished) ("We have repeatedly rejected arguments, such as Nelson's, asserting that private sector employment income is not subject to federal taxation.").

It appears that Magistrate Elizabeth M. Timothy failed in her job. She writes "(finding, in criminal prosecution, taxpayer’s argument that the IRC category of “employee” would “not include privately employed wage earners” a “preposterous reading of the statute”). Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has also described this theory..." Notice the use of the statutorily defined term wage (in ""wage-earners"). She appears to be generally protected from any correction to this failure by the fact that Nelson's amended returns were filed after the expiration of the period during which amended returns can be filed. Dscotese (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the magistrate did not fail in her job. And, bluntly, your responsive comments don't really make sense in context. And you're still hung up on this idea that if a litigant uses the term "wage" to apply to private sector income, he or she has somehow screwed up by admitting something that he or she should not have admitted. Famspear (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The federal privilege argument also fails under a legal doctrine known as the James Doctrine -- for the simple reason that the federal income tax is imposed on illegal income. There is no federal privilege allowing you to commit a crime. Under the James Doctrine, as explained in a U.S. Supreme Court decision over fifty years ago, the receipt of money by an embezzler is included in the income of that embezzler under the Internal Revenue Code, even though the money does not belong to the embezzler, and even though he is required to return the money to its rightful owner. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961). As the Supreme Court has stated, "An unlawful gain, as well as a lawful one, constitutes taxable income when its recipient has such control over it that, as a practical matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it." Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952), at [22].

The argument that the federal income tax can be imposed only on amounts received while the individual is engaged in an activity in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege is also incorrect for the simple reason that an indirect tax (an "excise") does not need to relate to an activity at all, much less an activity involving a “federal privilege.”

For example, one of the points made by the Supreme Court in explaining its holdings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, no. 11-393; no. 11-398; no. 11-400 (slip opinion, U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012) is: The Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity (page 41 of the slip opinion). The tax in that case is the "shared responsibility payment," the penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code imposed on certain persons who do not purchase health insurance. That section 5000A tax is not an income tax but, like the federal income tax, it is generally considered to be an excise (an indirect tax) for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. Not only is the section 5000A tax not connected to an activity involving a federal privilege, it is not connected to an activity at all. Indeed, the point that it is a tax on inactivity (a failure to purchase insurance) was one of the objections raised by those opposed to the tax in the National Federation case -- and the Supreme Court rejected that objection by noting that the Congress can indeed validly impose an excise -- an indirect tax (which of course does not have to be apportioned) -- on inactivity.

Peter Hendrickson is under a federal court order never to use the scam again on his own tax returns. See United States v. Hendrickson, 2007 WL 2385071, at *3, 100 A.F.T.R.2nd 2007-5395, No. 06-11753, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Feb. 26, 2007, amended May 2, 2007), aff'd, No. 07-1510, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (June 11, 2008) (sanctions of $4,000 imposed for frivolous appeal), reh'g en banc denied (Dec. 16, 2008), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 08-1399 (June 15, 2009), reh'g denied, U.S. Supreme Court (August 17, 2009). Indeed, he spent time in federal prison (from June 29, 2010 to June 13, 2012) for using the scam on his own tax returns. See generally United States v. Hendrickson, 2010 TNT 81-15, n. 5, No. 2:08-cr-20585-DML-DAS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (April 26, 2010), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, No. 10-1726, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Feb. 8, 2012) (conviction affirmed; sentencing vacated and remanded for re-sentencing), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1345 (June 11, 2012).

Yet another example: Federal estate taxes. The federal estate tax is an excise, not a direct tax. The federal estate tax is a tax on the transfer of property at death. If the value of your taxable estate exceeds a certain amount at the time of death ($5,340,000 for persons dying in 2014), the federal estate tax may be incurred. Dying and leaving your assets to someone else is not the exercise of a federal privilege.

Same thing for the federal gift tax. It’s an excise on transfer of property during your life. If you give, in any one year, to any one person such as your child, assets having a value of over a certain amount, you may be liable for the gift tax. Giving money or other property to your child is not the exercise of a federal privilege.

The federal income tax, the federal estate tax, and the federal gift tax are all examples of “excises” (as that term is used in the U.S. constitutional law sense). Yet, none of these taxes requires the presence of the exercise of a federal privilege.

But, you’ve already been shown the court decisions. And yet you reject them. That tells me that you don’t really care about what the law is. You’re really just trying to justify your own belief.

Referring to the court decisions as “bad and disingenuous behaviors on the part of courts” is just another way of saying, in Hendricksonian fashion, that the courts are corrupt. You people cite court cases when you mistakenly feel it’s to your advantage to do so, but you reject the court cases that you feel you are unable to re-interpret to suit your own belief. Yet, in none of the court cases you people cite did the courts rule the way you claim the courts ruled, and in all the cases I cite the courts did reject the very beliefs you hold.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax from 1913 to 1919, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone in that decade ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1920s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1930s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1940s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1950s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1960s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

Individuals who were not engaged in the exercise of a "federal privilege" owed and paid federal income tax in the 1970s, and yet in all the court cases involving these people (many of who could afford the best tax lawyers), there is not one instance of anyone ever "discovering" or claiming anything like Pete Hendrickson's nonsense.

It was not until the year 1980, in the Buras case, that anyone ever came up with this goofy theory. And yet, Hendrickson's followers would like to have us believe that Video Arcade Manager Man discovered a "truth" about federal income taxation that escaped everyone in the United States (including every taxpayer, every tax lawyer, every tax law professor, and every federal judge) for over sixty years.

I find it interesting that followers of Hendrickson reject all the court decisions and claim to believe that 99.9999% of all tax lawyers, CPAs, federal judges, etc., are mistaken or corrupt, and yet eagerly assert -- as their only tax law authority -- the claims of a guy with zero legal, tax or accounting training or experience, whose life experiences are in video arcade management and apartment complex maintenance management, and who has served not one but two terms in federal prison for tax convictions, and who can't win under his own theory in his own federal criminal and civil tax cases. Famspear (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You have provided a lot of good evidence showing that the courts very often dodge the letter of the law. If you consider the source of the income and career advancement for the people responsible for what the courts say, it might be less interesting that people "reject" the superficial interpretations of their decisions. Determining the meaning of the law using court decisions alone is like testing a person's knowledge by comparing their earlier answers to their later answers. The truth remains, regardless of how many people and what authorities ignore it. Hendrickson's website remains the best source I've found that illustrates the mechanics of the fraud. We can just agree to disagree for now. Thank you, in any case, for attempting to protect me from what you think is bad information. Dscotese (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Saying that the courts "dodge" the letter of the law is your way of saying that you and Hendrickson disagree with what the courts have ruled, and that the courts haven't explained things to your satisfaction.

It's also nonsense to imply that the courts rule the way they do because of the source of the judges' income.

Under our legal system, determining the meaning of the law "using court decisions alone" is precisely the correct way to determine the meaning of law. No, there is no "truth" about the law as you describe it that is somehow independent of what the courts have ruled. What the law is is determined, under the U.S. legal system, by reference to court decisions, not by reference to the writings of Peter Hendrickson or you.

I do wish you good luck. Famspear (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Famspear! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind acquittal

I don't use PACER, but from what I understand through third parties (no reliable sources), document #197 3:14cr91/MCR has resulted in an acquittal. There are a few details that are over my head (IANAL), like if "due to be granted" means the order is a done deal pending drafting of the order, or if the government can appeal and this could drag out. I can almost follow how the order to forfeit substitute property lacks sufficient specificity, but not quite well enough to write it up. I thought I'd flag you, since you have a much better grasp of this.BiologicalMe (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the text and explanation. I remember the jury form that allowed them to rule on the two different orders on the contempt charge. I can see how there's a parallel to (but still a different set of rules) to the in personam vs. in rem jurisdiction discussed in one of the appellate rulings on the criminal rather than civil forfeiture of the properties. I've read enough of the texts in the case that I could probably have put it together, but this is far from my strong suit. I'm much more comfortable dealing with the evolutionary biology issues. I'll keep an eye out for the final order which will hopefully be more detailed.BiologicalMe (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you'll keep an eye open for a "final order." Both of the orders on May 18, 2015 are indeed final orders -- in the sense that they are appealable orders (not that either side is likely to appeal either order). And both orders specifically lay out, in detail, the reasoning of the Court. Famspear (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I may have been misled by the "Judgment will be entered by separate Order" passage. I was hoping that order would include an even more detailed discussion that goes into rulings that produced the forfeiture orders. I realize it could turn out to be just a short "see #197, so ordered", possibly with a few details (some important, such as whether he goes directly home or remains in custody).BiologicalMe (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Document #199 was the short version. I've had a chance to reread everything and feel much more up to speed. I have one more question related to Kent Hovind that you might be able to answer. The IRS tried to get his internet provider to provide service records and that went to court. I've hunted for anything on that case (more curiosity than expectation of finding something that helps the article). The only reference I have is "United States of America v. Cox Cable Communications (1998) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6886". I couldn't find it using Google Scholar. Is there an easy way to get a more detailed case number out of that reference? Thanks.BiologicalMe (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking into the matter of the internet service provider, but it may take a while as I have some other stuff I'm dealing with right now. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't expect it to be a priority. I suspect that it's unlikely to produce much benefit to Wikipedia, but it's tough to tell. My experience with the article has been a lot of finding useful references that weren't the ones I was looking for.BiologicalMe (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fractional reserve

I'm surprised and very disappointed that you responded to my concern regarding WP policy, sourcing, and encyclopedic tone with an ad hominem. Perhaps you'll remove it. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Specifico: I don't believe I've attacked you, or used an ad hominem. You and I have worked together for a long time on these articles. I'm concerned, however, about your comments on the talk page. Please respond on that talk page to my concerns. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The only concern I read from you is your concern that LK and I don't understand the subject matter. My comments stand. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that you don't understand the subject matter. I have always assumed that you do. What I said was: "if you disagree with or do not understand this material, then you probably do not have an adequate understanding of how fractional reserve banking works, and you may well not understand the article as a whole." (italics added). Famspear (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As LK stated at the outset, the article should not be a collection of facts, opinions, or interpretations no matter what the source. The article needs to present a balanced narrative that describes the subject in a balanced way according to RS expositions available to us. These are cherrypicked quotes which appear to promote a rejection of the mainstream narrative presented in the article. These banking-related articles have been plagued by various POV-pushers and sockpuppet accounts for years now. We need material which is integrated, both in the source and the article, with an explanation of how banking works. This section appears to have been cherrypicked quotes which undermine the narrative without offering a broader or revised alternative. Anyway I am not inclined to revert the section because, as you said, the article has a history of pointless edit-warring and it's a waste of time. Best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the sense that you are trying to avoid something, and you haven't said what it is. "Cherrypicking" implies going through materials and picking only the materials that support a particular position, generally for the purpose of presenting a false picture of what the source says, or a false picture of the main stream view. The material under discussion does not do that. It is not "cherrypicking,"

And nothing in the material promotes a "rejection" of ANYTHING presented in the article.

I agree that these banking-related articles have been targeted by POV-pushers for years, and I have never thought of you as being one of them. Yet, you now seem to feel that there is something in the material we are discussing that "rejects" something else in the article. Strangely, you seem to be reluctant to come out and say what exactly you are talking about.

It is going to be difficult for me or others to respond to your concerns about the supposed "rejection" and (apparently) what you fear is lack of "balance" where you don't come out and say what your specific objection really is. Famspear (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Having interacted with SPECIFICO a great number of times over many years, I can tell you with some confidence that the thing he is (strangely) not saying, is that he is a supporter of the "ILF" description of fractional reserve banking, as presented in many undergraduate textbooks, as opposed to the "FMC" description, as presented by many central bankers themselves. ILF vs FMC is defined in the summary of this BoE paper. So for example, the ILF description will usually (and incorrectly) leave the reader with the impression that banks commonly lend out their reserves to borrowers. So when you used the words "conceptually lent out" you are not following the normal textbook ILF description. You description is actually better... just not following the majority of textbooks. Reissgo (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak about textbooks that I haven't read, and I haven't read every textbook -- so I cannot say what a "majority" of textbooks say.

Even Ben Bernanke, the former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, has on at least one occasion used something like the phrase "lending out reserves" (I don't recall his exact words) to describe part of the process. I don't believe that Bernanke intended that to mean, literally, that American banks are in the regular habit of making most loans by doling out "reserves" -- such as by having customers walk out of the bank lobby with huge bags of currency and coins. My sense is that Bernanke (and other knowledgeable people) are using figures of speech.

What I can say is that the Horvitz text (cited in the Wikipedia article on fractional-reserve banking and quoted on the article talk page) was the text used in my university economics course entitled "Money and Banking." In the text, Horvitz is precise in his use of language, both in describing the actual process (in terms of debits to loan accounts and credits to deposit accounts) and the effect of the process in terms of the algebraic formulas that describe the money multiplier. Horvitz certainly is not confused about the subject; he is a master of the subject. Indeed, the two topics are covered in completely different chapters of the book.

So, in my formal university training, and in the real world of bank auditing, I did not run across the big problem that you and SPECIFICO seem to have been perceiving and arguing about. I'm not saying that the texts to which you refer aren't describing the process incorrectly; I just haven't read all those texts.

I had a good professor and a good text in my university course. My university training and my experience as a Certified Public Accountant auditing banks over a period of five years in the 1970s and 1980s helped me. (I'm also a lawyer.) Famspear (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With regard the money multiplier, I don't know why so many textbooks emphasize it. After reading a textbook, many students would come away with the impression that the money supply sits semi-permanently at the maximum level dictated by the multiplier and a fixed pool of reserves. But of course the multiplier is not a constraint in practice because central banks supply additional reserves on demand. So any description of the multiplier should be preceded with a notice to the effect of "the following describes the maximum amount the bank could lend out IF AND ONLY IF central banks did not supply additional reserves on demand". Another thing about the ILF vs MFC is that if you use the FMC explanation you don't need that horrid and confusing "sum of a diminishing series" calculation, instead you can do the calculation in one shot. Reissgo (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I value everything you do and I cannot thank you enough! Thanks for the welcome, too. Brokor (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Famspear (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Senate Report 93-549

I don't like to mention this right on the heels of such a compliment, but Brokor continues to restore his original research to the Report 93-549 article, and to insist that his tortured reading of the statute trumps any number of published authorities. (See this revision for some citations I added to the lead before he removed them. I left more on the talk page.) Your patient assumption of good faith on his part is admirable, but in the end he is just one more "patriot theorist" who's decided that he has personally uncovered some deep secret. Is there any point in continuing to indulge him? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

--Mr. Anonymous -You might like to get to know me before assuming the worst. Truth be told, I am willing to not only meet you halfway on this issue, but also remove a great deal of the information I provided (although I feel it is all pertinent), provided you quote the specific portion you have an issue with. I could be seen as an asset or a hindrance, depending on your perspective. It's up to you. Now, I have cited every source and used credible references, which I might add, supersede your own Google books references, not only due to the fact that mine are actual codified law references, but clearly explains that the NEA explicitly exempted the TWEA as amended. Your version claims the emergency (the primary emergency first mentioned in the forward of the Senate Report March, 1933) is not in effect due to the NEA. Your version also claims under the heading "Modern Controversy" that it's a "conspiracy theory", which is unsupported and requires references. Your version also links to a strange website in China for the actual .pdf for the Report, and no images are present. In fact, your revision is completely and utterly useless. But, I have kept your version whole, and with my added information, clarified the subject. Again, please quote the specific problems you are having and I will do everything I can to remove the portions you are having difficulty accepting, if possible. Brokor (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Greetings - I would say normally you are right, that only the word "court" should be capitalized when referring to any court by a name other than its official name. However, this is the United States Supreme Court, which always has the distinction of being fully capitalized (Supreme Court), no matter how it is referred. I respectfully disagree with your position, and in multiple copies of the Constitution (article 8) I could only find versions where both words are capitalized. Due to my research, I'm going to revert back to the full capitalization (and I'll keep the original citation pointing to article 8, which supports this), however in the full interest of Wikipedia I ask that if you have any substantial evidence to your viewpoint I am all ears and willing to work on this. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Found an original scan of article 8 - you are correct, I've reverted back to "supreme Court", based on the original 1787 document. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WouNur

Hi Famspear. It strikes me that you're kind of feeding a troll on its talk page. WouNur is posting WP:SOAPBOX and is either unable or unwilling to engage in constructive discussion with you. I suggest you consider stepping away. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he/she is a troll. I took his arguments apart, piece by piece -- and now he has pretty much agreed, and has admitted that his real agenda is to "expose" --i.e., the usual stuff that we see from some of the newbies that come to edit the Federal Reserve and Fractional-reserve banking articles. So, at this point, my work on that is just about done anyway.

I think he just has that formerly hidden but now open agenda (opposition to the banking system), and because he didn't know the Wikipedia rules, he caused some problems. I think you helped to nip some of the behavior in the bud -- at least I hope so. We'll see if any future edits by him are more constructive. Thanks! Famspear (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have further questions you'd like to ask, please use my talk page :)

^ Anonymous 573462i (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dynegy

If you're still interested in Dynegy, you might want to check this out: WP:COIN#Dynegy Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Insider trading page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Right to keep and bear arms

About your revert:[23] please visit the talk page and discuss why you think the material belongs. Felsic2 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Capital gains tax in the United States

Stipulating that you know depreciation better than I, there must be a way to phrase your edit here more simply. I would cover the simple rule first, then cover the exceptions in a second paragraph. "Kind of asset" leaves me hanging; some depreciable assets are not subject to the cap-gains rate at all? Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

PS--Have post-edited this along the above lines; please edit further if I have garbled anything or to address my question above. Spike-from-NH (talk)

Dear Spike: Well, technically, the depreciation does not "add" to the gain on the sale. It's more accurate to say that one part of the gain on the sale of an asset may consist of depreciation recapture and another part may consist of, well, gain that is not depreciation recapture. Illustration:

Buy a piece of depreciable equipment, to be used in a trade or business. Let's say original cost basis is $10,000. Now (I'm using round numbers for simplicity) suppose the taxpayer takes $3,000 of depreciation deductions and, after holding the asset for two years, then sells the asset for $12,000.

The adjusted basis of course is $7,000 ($10,000 less $3,000). The gain is computed as follows:

Amount realized $12,000 (less) adjusted basis (7,000) Gain $5,000

Under sections 1231 and 1245 of the Internal Revenue Code, the $5,000 gain consists of a long-term capital gain of $2,000 and what is called "ordinary" income of $3,000. The $3,000 of ordinary income is depreciation recapture. It's not that the $3,000 of depreciation is "added" to the gain; it doesn't "need" to be "added". In a sense, the depreciation (or to be more precise, the depreciation recapture) is already part of the gain.

Now, let's take a different example. Suppose the asset cost $20,000. Suppose we take $20,000 of depreciation deductions, and sell the asset for $20,000 (after having used the asset for four or five years, etc.). The adjusted basis is zero, of course ($20,000 original cost less $20,000 in depreciation deductions). (In this example, I'm just making it a co-incidence that the sales price just happens to equal the price we paid for the asset.)

We have a $20,000 gain.

Amount realized $20,000 (less) adjusted basis ( 0) Gain 20,000

The entire gain is ordinary income (not long-term capital gain). In this case, the gain happens to be 100% depreciation recapture. It's not precisely correct to say that the depreciation is "added" to the gain. The gain is computed the same way each time: amount realized less adjusted basis. The depreciation recapture isn't ADDED to the gain, it's PART of the gain (actually, in this example, it's 100% of the gain).

Depreciation isn't "added" to the gain; you don't "compute the gain amount" and then "add" the depreciation. Instead, you compute the gain, and then you determine whether any portion of that gain happens to be depreciation recapture. Famspear (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: I made some refinements to the language in the article. Famspear (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

PPS: It gets more complicated when we start talking about real estate (instead of machinery and equipment, which is what the above examples are about). In the case of real estate (that is, the depreciable portion of real estate, or section 1250 property), some or all of the portion of the gain that is attributable to depreciation may be treated as long term capital gain, not ordinary income, depending on the facts of the case. Famspear (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We are getting there! And you definitely know the subject better than I. In this article, I am looking for a good overview rather than detailed precision. Your refinements are okay, except that I would make the complications a second paragraph, and your final two thoughts (starting at ", however," seem to say, "They aren't capital gains at all in this case, and on some kind of assets, they aren't capital gains at all either." Consolidate? Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This "beingsshepherd" thing

Looking back on their edits, they seem to have a weird habit of launching into pedantic or bizarre arguments like we're seeing.

• One here from last November
• another one here
• another one here, starts July 2015 - you may have to follow the diffs forward as he actually managed to get people going back and forth, similar to what we're seeing at Talk:Sovereign citizen movement
• June 2015 - another one where they pulled someone in to argue for a brief period
• April 2014, another attempt to start a back and forth

Some of their talk page is equally weird.

And then there are edits like this diff and this diff and even this diff that seems to have made no appreciable change to the article beyond removing a wikilink, but with an edit summary that doesn't match.

I don't really know what to do with this pattern. It's... bizarre, and seems like it's more a cry for attention than that they are actually trying to get anyone to make improvements. Going back through their edit history, this seems to be the pattern whenever they hit a talk page.

Pinging @Orangemike: as well, just in case he has some opinion on it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC for "Common Law"

A few weeks ago, you noted that concerns relating to the three connotations for the term "common law" could be feared to be "silly."

Could you make an appearance at Talk:Common_law# Request for comment on "three connotations"

and confirm for this benighted soul that the three connotations are indeed commonly known, and that numbering them to disambiguate is not "research," let alone "original research?"

Thank you.

204.9.220.36 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on the IRS penalties page reverting information on reporting of penalties

Hello, I noticed that you reverted edits on the IRS penalties page with information on where the penalty for late filing or late tax payments is reported. In your reverting edit, you made two claims:

• this is not what the source says, precisely, and
• the source itself isn't even a reliable source

Based on my reading of the edit and the source, neither seems correct to me:

• What the source says: Quoting verbatim from the source: "If you include interest or penalties (other than the estimated tax penalty) with your payment, identify and enter the amount in the bottom margin of Form 1040, page 2. Do not include interest or penalties (other than the estimated tax penalty) in the amount you owe on line 78." And right below that, the "Penalties" section lists "Late filing" and "Late payment of tax" in the list of penalty types under consideration. In comparison, the edit that you reverted says: "When filing Form 1040, the penalty for failure to file or pay can be listed on the bottom margin of page 2 of the form, but should not be included on the amount due line (line 78)." This looks like it's getting information precisely correctly from the source.
• The source is the Internal Revenue Service website, and these are the official Form 1040 general instructions (you can also see the same text in their official PDF documentation on Page 93). This seems like a pretty reliable source to me, since the IRS defines the way the forms work.

Although anecdotal evidence should not count for the purposes of final decision regarding what to include in the page, it does infuence my view of the correctness of the statements. A friend of mine actually had his tax return processed incorrectly because he included a late filing/late payment penalty in Line 78, and therefore got charged more tax than he needed to be. In a subsequent phone call with the IRS, he was informed by their representatives of the same facts as present in the source cited above.

Would love to understand the rationale behind your revert better, and what information or context you have that I am missing.Vipul (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My mistake -- I didn't see that verbiage on the IRS web page when I first looked at the material. Famspear (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

test 22 august

test 22 august

test 2

Warning users after a revert

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your fractional-reserve banking recent edit

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Re: Fractional-reserve banking

Thank you for your note and explanation. PhD comes form your home pages (i.e "Doctor of jurisprudence"), same for the other editor who has apparently accepted my final edit after I added 2 references sourced to RS. This is purely technical, not controversial from my perspective. Besides I have properly explained ALL my edits on that page. *YOU* did not provide any, sir. Cheers and thanks! 47.17.18.64 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP 47.17.18.64: A Doctor of Jurisprudence is not a PhD. It's a Doctor of Jurisprudence. And I'm not a "self-called" Doctor of Jurisprudence -- not the connotative sense that you are using. Someone else designated me as a Doctor of Jurisprudence.

No, you have not properly explained any of your edits.

Further, your edits are tendentious and not are supported by the material you are citing.

Further, you have been engaging in an edit war, in violation of the rules. By contrast, my single revert of an edit you made constitutes neither "harassment" nor edit warring. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thanks for your short comments. I did explain all my edit in the edit summary. It is YOU (again) who did not provide *ANY* edit summary. Respectfully, as far as I know, YOU call yourself as such (i.e. "Doctor") and yet you seem not to understand this very simple concept that I have explained in my edit. For your info I was taught that short paragraph in School in Switzerland - and a Professor had invited and received all major central bankers to our School at that time. Regarding my sources: so far that is the BEST source I could find. You are welcome to help find new sources (I am fluent in 5 languages but English is NOT my mother tongue). 47.17.18.64 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is not supported by the sources you provided. You are engaged in what Wikipedia calls original research, and that is prohibited. You claimed that essentially banks make a 100% profit on deposit accounts. That is not only false, it is also tendentious -- and it's not supported by the material you cited. So, you've also violated the rule on Verifiability. The sources need to actually say what you claim they say. Famspear (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is what you wrote:

It means that a commercial bank with a 10% reserve requirement has its carry - i.e. average profit made from interests received from clients minus interests paid to its depositors - multiplied by a factor of ten. In simple terms, a bank with a carry of 10% is making 100% gross profit margin on deposits made by its customers (not 10% as most people assume).

The Investopedia source you cited, to which you provided links, does not include that example or computation at all. That is your example, your computation, and your original research. Famspear (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You have also admitted that you were "taught that short paragraph in School in Switzerland". You have admitted that you yourself (or your professor in school in Switzerland) is the source for the material. See: WP:NOR. Famspear (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I was SIMPLY trying to convey that "2+2=4" and you call that WP:OR. You are funny. It is a legal form of counterfeiting. The "Professor thing" is true but it is irrelevant. I said that to make you understand that it is not "fringe theory" but elementary mathematics and you have not been able to disprove any of that so far. Do you really need to source to RS for that? 47.17.18.64 (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't need a source for that. YOU need a source for that.

No, you're not trying to convey that 2+2=4. No, you're not talking about elementary mathematics. You're trying to argue that fractional-reserve banking is a form of counterfeiting. That's not what your source material claims. You are trying to insert your own feelings, your own beliefs, and your own Original Research into Wikipedia. That's not allowed.

By the way, you are simply the latest in a long train of people who have come here to Wikipedia and have tried to insert these kinds of arguments into the articles on banking. We've seen it all before. Famspear (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

fractional reserve banking

Hi,

I saw that you made edits to fractional reserve banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Care and Feeding of Trolls

Famspear, you are very clear in expressing your knowledgeable views concerning money and banking. I'm at a loss to understand, however, why you continue to make the same points over and over to editors who are not engaged in dialogue, who are soapboxing, or who simply love the attention and the thrill of empty arguments on the internet. Please consider. You are too valuable an editor here to waste your time on unproductive discourse. Pardon my frankness. Here's an interesting essay on the subject: [24] SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO: I understand your point but, in my view, the party in question is not a troll as that term is described in the essay you mentioned. Famspear (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well OK! Then please consider the pages on WP:TE WP:UNDUE and associated behavioral and editorial standards. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are well-known concepts to experienced Wikipedia editors. Famspear (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Famspear. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Georgia v. Brailsford

I've just rewritten Georgia v. Brailsford (1794). Since you raised criticisms of it at one point, you might be interested in reviewing the changes. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Track anchors in "common law"

Could you take a look at Talk:Common law -- Quexigator asserts that Black's 10th Ed and Bryan Garner's dictionary "look like a student's garbled notes of a lecture" You've had some choice things to say about the absurdity of some edits by cranks on various legal topics -- it might be appropriate here too. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Remuneration includes wage? =

What is your source for your claim that remuneration includes wage? --TaxCracker (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Remuneration" may or may not include "wage", but I have not "claimed" that "remuneration includes wage." You must be thinking of something you're reading that you don't like in the article on Wages. I did not write that article. I am simply responding to your edits to that article.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the rules. For a start, see: WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Famspear (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Taxation

Hi Famspear! I am currently attempting to revive the Taxation WikiProject which was marked as semi-active. I noticed that you were on the old list of members and that you are still an active user on Wikipedia. If you are still interested in contributing to this WikiProject, please head over the the project page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on the discussion page, or by contacting me. Thanks! HawkGeminus 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

John Cox For Governor

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The free american press (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear user "The free American press": You're doing your part to persuade people not to vote for "John Cox" for governor. Famspear (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Martin A. Armstrong

An article that you have been involved in editing—Martin A. Armstrong—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ratel (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Common law - vandalism?

You seem to be one of the people that looks after law articles. I'd like to alert you to a pattern of vandalism -- long indictment at [25]

Qexigator has a problem with the definition of "common law" that all the rest of us (including Black's dictionary) work with -- so he edited out the parts of the definition from a footnote that he disagrees with. When I was actively practicing, that would have gotten you sanctioned. From that starting point, he rewrote "common law" with a very heavy hand, but very little knowledge.

Are you an admin with disciplinary authority? If not, could you refer this to someone who is?

Thanks

DCLawwyer (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Famspear. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This guy is clearly a paid GOP/Russian shill

He needs to be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.143.166 (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Plurals

No, my edit was to change 'transports' back to 'transport', the latter which is the correct form for plural of transport in this context - that's all. I appreciate your improvements to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, "transport" is plural. And correct in this context. Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, "transport" is singular. Famspear (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. "Transport" can be singular and it can be plural. It's worth looking up. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. As used in the article, "transport" is a noun. My collegiate dictionary here at my office shows the word only as a singular noun. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1512, World Publishing Co., Inc., Second College Edition (1978). I have two more collegiate dictionaries at home. I'll try to check them tonight.

What's your source for using "transport" as a plural noun? Famspear (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Plural transitive verb. These cover it reasonably well - https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/transport_2 and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/transport - in the sense of 'the act, process, or means of transporting'. I'm by no means a grammar expert, but I've read, heard, and used that form countless times. I have an innate 'ear' for correct grammar, for whatever that's worth :) . Anastrophe (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If anything, the material you linked supports my position.

The "act, process, or means of transporting" is a description a singular noun, not a verb (plural or otherwise). That is: transport is "the act, process, or means of transporting". The terms "act," "process" and "means" are also singular nouns. The term "transport" is not being used as a plural verb or plural noun or a plural anything else. Famspear (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wrong. I think it's where the sentence wraps in my browser that's fubaring me. It should be either "Temporary transport of some items, most notably suppressors, does not need to be reported" or "Temporary transports of some items, most notably suppressors, do not need to be reported. I'm an idiot, but hey, it's a weekday, I'm usually wrong on weekends. Also usually wrong on weekends too. Anastrophe (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Christian Patriot movement and Patriot movement

These exist as two separate articles. From what I can tell, the latter was created by editors who accept some elements of Posse Comitatus ideology, but don't like being associated the history laid out in the former (even though it is verifiably their own history). Do you believe a distinction should be made between the groups that were closely entangled with Christian Identity in the 80s, and the present right-libertarian movement that includes Alex Jones, the Bundy family, the Constitutional Sheriffs, etc.? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Consent search page

Hi Famspear, wow...very impressive User/Talk pages! I just wanted to drop by and say on Consent search I am working on the following:

• The New Jersey Supreme Court in 2002 banned consent searches
• The Minnesota Supreme Court also banned consent searches in 2003
• Rhode Island banned consent searches in 2004

Initially, all statements were based on one article from the ACLA, but that is very dated (from 2002), so I am going to search out better references. Right off, I found there was a reversal in New Jersey in 2015, but I'm a bit confused about it. I sent an email to the ACLU-NJ for clarification. This page from 2017 states there isn't a ban, but you are required to be informed of your rights, so maybe I should just restate it as "New Jersey requires you to be informed of your right to refuse." I haven't looked into Minnesota or Rhode Island yet. Seahawk01 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Famspear. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Past U.S. Tax Court judges

In case your editing interest extends to biographies of past judges of the U.S. Tax Court, I have about three dozen drafts underway, in various states of disrepair. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and hello, old friend! I don't edit as much as I did in the early days (for me that was in 2005 through about 2007). I still monitor Wikipedia every day, especially tax-related articles. Famspear (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit help?

Famspear, I hope you don't mind an unsolicited contact. I noticed your copy edits at 2020 Houston explosion. I have attempted without success to get feedback on Texas biography articles from various Wikiprojects. If you are familiar with Texas history, and like to review articles and do copy edits, the content could benefit from a fresh set of eyes. I have a peer review request for Samuel May Williams and I am interested in making improvements to Jesse H. Jones in preparation for a GA-review. If you are so inclined to look these over, I would greatly appreciate it. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Banister for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Banister, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Banister until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Martin A. Armstrong: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tax protester constitutional arguments

Tax protester constitutional arguments has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)