I'll be glad to talk to you about it
Seeing you have no backing in law and the courts blow your sorry excuses down repeatedly, that would be a worthless exercise.
leaving emotion and investment in new taxing schemes aside.
LOL, you go ahead and place yourself on the legal jeopardy. I'm sure of Thurston Bell will be grateful for Larkin Rose's & your knowledge and aid to him.
Rose is not afilliated with either NITE or Taxgate.
Seeing that Larkin Rose was a contributor to Thurston's Bell's website and T.B. made extensive use of Larkin Rose' arguments your assertion doe little to sever the link between them. I notice that the NITE websight is displaying the court's injuction to cease his opertion I therefore lack the specific link to Rose's material as it used to exist there, since the court's injuction is only temporary for now, I'm sure we will see it all back up once Bell & N.I.T.E. win their case.
Bell was burned for charging for his advice and his counsel. That's it.
If they could have got him on his arguments, they would have they did,
They did, that is why the injuction was ordered and the case moves ahead.
One of the elements of aiding and abetting is to cause the filing of "false" returns, (e.g. based on false legal premise).
From the Department of Justice Criminal Tax Manual
26 USC 7206(2) makes it a felony to:
Willfully aid[] or assist[] in . . . the preparation or presentation under . . . the internal revenue laws . . . of a return . . . which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return . . . .
This statute is known as the Internal Revenue Code's aiding and abetting provision, and applies not only to tax return preparers but to anyone who causes a false return to be filed. United States v. Sassak, 881 F.2d 276, 277-78 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Williams, 644 F.2d 696, 701 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841 (1981).
[skipping some]
For example, in United States v. Causey, 835 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction of the defendant for causing 18 individuals to file false tax returns claiming refunds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2. The defendant argued that the government failed to establish that the persons actually submitting the false claims knew they were false. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and found that under subsection 2(b) a person "may be guilty of causing a false claim to be presented to the United States even though he or she uses an innocent intermediary to actually pass on the claim to the United States." 835 F.2d at 1292.
The court then held that in a section 2 prosecution for violation of section 287, the government does not need to allege or prove that the person actually submitting the claims knew them to be false. Id.
Tax protestors who cause third parties to prepare and file false returns may be charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). See United States v. Holecek, 739 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985) (return preparation); United States v. Kellogg, 955 F.2d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendant assisted in preparation of returns filed by others); United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 240 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985) (preparation and mailing of false Forms W-4); United States v. Erickson, 676 F.2d 408 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 853 (1982).
Providing advice and material to taxpayers, who in turn file false returns, is sufficient to sustain a section 7206(2) conviction. See United States v. Kelley, 769 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1985). In Kelley, the defendant argued that he could not be lawfully convicted of violating section 7206(2) because "he . . . did not actually participate in the preparation of any of the forms [Forms W-4] but only gave advice that his listeners were free to accept or reject." Kelley, 769 F.2d at 217. Rejecting this argument, the court said:
The contention ignores reality, for he did participate in the preparation of the forms. He told the listeners what to do and how to prepare the forms. He did so with the intention that his advice be accepted, and the fact that the members paid him for the advice and promised assistance warranted an inference of an expectation that the advice would be followed. Moreover, he actually supplied forms and materials to be filed with W-4 forms. He did not take his pen in his hand to complete the forms, but his participation in their preparation was as real as if he had.
Again, a judge just says the argument is wrong without an analytical opinion.
No requirement to do so at the district court level as such opinions have already been rendered by the apellate courts, However Bell has every right to appeal what he considers an insufficient ruling. At which time I am sure the judges will more than accomodate him along with a few extra fines for frivolous argument.
Aren't you even the least suspicious when someone says "That's wrong" but declines to discuss it?
No, when the arguments have been around ad nauseum since the beginning of taxation in this country and repeatedly shown to be nothing but hot air and vapors no more discussion is required. The meaning of "frivolous" is the issue has been decided, due diligence on your part would provide more than ample warning to bring it up again in a court of law.
Judges are no different. They know the axe that hangs over their heads.
Which axe is that? They get paid regardless of whether or not the income tax exists by Constitutional mandate under Article III. If they rule to void the income tax they themselves would no longer be subject to it. Some axe.
Notice, in both evaluations exactly the same result will be obtained from the Courts.
Furthermore:
1) Federal judges are appointed for life, and good behaviour. The pay cannot be taken away from them.
2) Federal judges have ruled their pay is subject to income tax, though at any time they could rule otherwise if they so desired and believed otherwise.
3) It would be in the personal and financial interest for the courts to rule that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. In so doing the law would be void, the IRS which is authorised under that law would ceased to exist or have power over the people or the courts.
4) Judges are ruling against there own personal interest in support the income tax against you in the courtroom. For if it did not apply to you, it cannot apply to them.
Something is lacking in your analysis and it is called reason and credibility. It does not pass the test of Occum's razor, nor the laugh test.