Jump to content

Talk:Tax protester/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Dale Eastman and the "Tax Honesty Movement"

1. Dear Mr. Dale R. Eastman or User at IP address 4.158.201.8: Regarding your questions to me personally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_Honesty_Movement, thank you for your comments.

2. Yes, speaking of your being busy with other things, I am pretty much in the same position right now. Because I do lots of tax stuff, this is the busiest time of year for me, until Monday, April 17th (because April 15th falls on a Saturday this year). I can’t promise you that I will be able to get to your tax commentary in any meaningful way.

3. Also, if we ever do have time for this, I would say that rather than posting material on your web site, a much more efficient method of communication – one that I suspect would result in a lot more people reading what we have to say -- would be to talk about it here at Talk:Tax protester.

4. Regarding your comments, yes, I guess I am a big city lawyer. For what it’s worth, I did drive a truck in my first job many years ago (it was only a delivery van, not a big truck, but whatever).

5. I can tell you at this point, that you are the umpteenth tax protester or "tax honesty movement" member to review these statutes, regs, and court decisions. Both your analysis and your conclusions are incorrect as a matter of law. That’s nothing against you personally. Part of it is that you’re not trained to do legal analysis and part of it is your overall approach.

6. I have briefly reviewed the material at your web site. Many of the cases you cite, especially Eisner v. Macomber, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., and the Merchants' Bank case, have been exhaustively covered by other tax protesters over the years. Unfortunately, the so-called "analysis" that tax protesters apply in studying these cases is not a correct formal legal analysis.

7. In your web site you instead apply an "idiosyncratic interpretation" to what are essentially very technical legal texts. To analyze law properly, you must instead use principles of formal legal analysis used to study not only tax law but contract law, property law, criminal law, tort law, and all other areas of American law. Formal legal analysis cannot be “learned” merely by studying the texts of one, or five, or even a hundred court decisions.

8. You cannot learn formal legal analysis merely by studying the statutes and regulations you discuss on your web site. Learning to do formal legal analysis cannot be done in the way you have tried to do it. You learn to perform legal analysis by becoming a lawyer.

9. The process of just getting into law school in the first place is a rigorous winnowing that few people can withstand. You first have to graduate from an accredited college or university with at least a bachelor’s degree. Then, you have to apply to a law school and sit for the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). Many college graduates simply do not have the college grades or the LSAT scores to be accepted by a law school.

10. Once you are accepted and enter law school, you gradually learn to perform correct legal analysis not by having a professor "lecture" as a professor would in high school or college, and not primarily by reading a "textbook." Instead you go through a rigorous, formal process using two methods: the Socratic method and the case method. Law school in the United States is akin to a military boot camp -- for the mind. However, instead of lasting about six weeks, law school lasts three years.

11. Further, many law schools are very competitive. Many law schools have what is called "grade deflation." That is, if you were an A student in college, you will usually end up being a C or a B minus student in law school. Even if you graduated from college in the top of your class, law school can be a rude awakening. If there are three hundred people in your first year class, you are essentially competing with nearly three hundred clones of yourself, in terms of ability to perform. Your competition is not merely college students, not merely college graduates, but instead college graduates who have been accepted into law school. Most people simply cannot make the cut.

12. A further hurdle is that some law schools deliberately "flunk out" a large number of law students after the end of the first year. So some people don’t make it – even after having gone this far.

13. The law students who do make it gradually learn to perform correct legal analysis in part by studying literally thousands of court decisions (and statutes and other legal materials) of all kinds – not just tax law decisions – in a very intense, rigorous academic atmosphere. They start with old English cases (our law originally comes from something called English common law) with archaic and very technical language. They study contracts, property, torts, criminal law, constitutional law, legal research and writing, civil procedure, evidence, principal and agent, corporations and partnerships, trusts and wills, marital property rights, employment law, secured transactions, and on and on. A doctor of jurisprudence degree requires about 88 to 97 semester hours of law, depending on the law school – and this is AFTER four years of college, AFTER graduating from college, AFTER having taken the LSAT, and AFTER having been accepted for admission to law school.

14. And AFTER having gone through all this for three years after college and AFTER HAVING earned a doctor of jurisprudence degree, you are still not finished. You still have to sit for the bar examination – often a two or three day affair, administered under the supervision of the highest court in your state (usually called the state Supreme Court). If you pass the bar examination, you are finally licensed by the state Supreme Court as an attorney – and THEN you can start legally advising other people about what the law is and how it applies. Only then are you legally qualified to advise other people about what the constitution, the statutes, the regs, the treaties, the court decisions and other legal materials really mean and how they should be interpreted.

15. With all due respect, the method of "analysis" you use on your web site – this idiosyncratic interpretation -- does not conform to the rules of legal analysis. This means that not only are your conclusions incorrect as a matter of law, your method of "reasoning" is also incorrect as a matter of law. Using your method of interpretation, you would fail the first semester of law school. The rules cannot be learned in a day or a month or a year of reading actual statutes, regs, and court decisions in the way you obviously have been reading them.

16. However, that is not to say that you would actually use your method of reasoning if you actually were in law school. If you actually were in law school, you would quickly learn to spot the errors in the "analytical" method you use on your web site -- and you would I suspect learn to do it right.

Idiosyncratic interpretation results in lack of credibility

17. Some of these court decisions you talk about on your web site are what legal scholars call "leading cases" in the world of tax law. In particular, most tax lawyers can remember some leading cases after studying them in law school. You lose credibility right off the bat by analyzing these leading cases incorrectly on your web site, and by rendering incorrect conclusions about what the cases stand for. Because you lose credibility when you post an incorrect conclusion about a leading case, you immediately lose credibility on the internet.

18. You will notice that I have not addressed any of the material on your web site specifically. Hopefully in the next few weeks I will have time after tax season dies down a bit to provide an example for you of how to correctly interpret one of the cases you discuss on your web site.

Wikipedia treatment of the article on the "tax honesty movement"

19. Regarding the article on the Tax Honesty Movement, the article needs some clean up from a Wikipedia standpoint. My personal vote was to delete the article because I argue that whatever parts of the article can comply with Wikipedia’s rules can be presented more cogently in the article on tax protesters. It’s not necessarily a big deal whether the article stays or is deleted. My personal vote was for deletion, not a vote for suppressing basic information to the effect that so-called tax honesty movement exists. However, if anyone tries to mislead people into thinking that the tax honesty movement is not a continuation of and part of the tax protester movement, they violate Wikipedia rules. If anyone tries to use a Wikipedia article to try to persuade people that that the tax laws are being "misapplied," etc., etc. (and it matters not what specific words they use to try to hide what they are doing), then they are violating Wikipedia policies, rules, guidelines, etc. Wikipedia is not a cyberspace soapbox. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

20. If the Wikipedia community decides that the article stays, the article’s content is like the content of any other article: it’s subject to the Wikipedia rules including Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. If the article is deleted, the information on the tax honesty movement is already covered at Tax protester. Either way, proponents of the tax honesty movement who contribute text to a Wikipedia article will be subject to having their material edited or deleted the same as anyone else. This is an encyclopedia.

21. Well, it's 12:50 am on a Monday morning where I am. I have to go to work in the morning! Thanks for your interest. Famspear 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dale Eastman's Reply

22. Mr./Ms.? Famspear. Thank you for the reply. I thank you ahead of time on behalf of the Tax Honesty Movement, and on behalf of those that call us Tax Protestors, for the time you will be putting into this as your schedule will permit (after the 17th.) Both sides of the issue will learn from our dialog, And I hope to make the case that the Tax Honesty Movement is real, and valid.

23. I've taken the liberty of numbering our paragraphs for easier reference.

24. I'm going to start this even though we both won't have time to deal with this. I will be duplicating this on the page I set up. On that page I can use color to enhance discernment as to whose words are whose. [1]

Naked Assertions

25. Well then, on to it: In your paragraphs 5,6,& 7, you basically repeat the same mantra. What you attempt to say with that mantra, as paraphrased by me, is: "Dumb trucker don't know how to read the law".

26. You state in paragraph 5: Both your analysis and your conclusions are incorrect as a matter of law. You state in paragraph 6: Unfortunately, the so-called "analysis" that tax protesters apply in studying these cases is not a correct formal legal analysis. As frustrating as I imagine this is going to be for you, I'm going to call those statements for what they are: NAKED ASSERTIONS.

Because I'm a lawyer and I said so

27. In your paragraphs 8 through 14 you wave the flag of the rigors of lawyer school. (Rhetorical: So what. Half of you graduated at the bottom of your class.) In your paragraphs 5 through 18 you essentially wrote a hit piece in an attempt to attack my credibility by expounding upon your "formal" education.

Logic vs. Credentials

28. You have no "authority"; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis as you did in paragraphs 5 & 6. You have no authority; no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not see it, the lurkers who will read this can not see it. A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I do not worship at the alter of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials, I pay attention to whether the credentialed person says things that make sense. Remember, on the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog. Your paragraphs 8 through 14 have been neutralized. With 8 through 14 neutralized, support for your naked assertions in paragraphs 5,6,7,15,16,& 17 is also neutralized. The playing field is now level.

Trained for Logic

29. In paragraph 10, you state: Law school in the United States is akin to a military boot camp -- for the mind. EXCELLENT! Good, Good. You can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results are wrong (or not).

If we agreed, there would be no discussion

30. I'll admit that the point brought forth in paragraphs 5, & 6, is a possibility, and ONLY a possibility, because otherwise you and I would have nothing to discuss. We have a collision of analysis "results". However, as pointed out in the paragraph 28, because you say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: "Because I'm the Mommy, that's why."

Logic vs. Decree

31. You can tell me how you think. You can give me reasons for why you think the way you do. You can give me information to think about. What you can not do is tell me WHAT to think. That just doesn't cut it in a society that is supposed to be based upon personal Liberty.

The law MUST be understandable

32. You are familiar with the "Void For Vagueness Doctrine"? That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well- recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221 , 34 S. Ct. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638 , 34 S. Ct. 924 CONNALLY v. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)

33. Connally continues: The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture. The citizen cannot be held to answer charges based upon penal statutes whose mandates are so uncertain that they will reasonably admit of different constructions. A criminal statute cannot rest upon an uncertain foundation. The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and providing a punishment for their violation, should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of its requirements and the courts upon another.'

34. In paragraph 7, you state: In your web site you instead apply an "idiosyncratic interpretation" to what are essentially very technical legal texts. On March 18th my wife and I viewed the free screening of Aaron Russo's new movie: America From Freedom To Fascism. [2] I was with approximately 750 other people of common intelligence that have the same "idiosyncratic interpretation" of the law that I do. We "differ as to its application" with you. Admitted by the We the People organization [3] these showings are presently, mostly, "preaching to the choir". Every showing has been in packed houses. It's a small, but not insignificant, and growing choir, that "differ[s] as to its application" with you.

35. The "Void For Vagueness Doctrine" is espoused specifically in regard to tax law in the Gould v. Gould case. The concept presented stands on the merits of its self-evident, logical truth: In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55 , 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189. GOULD v. GOULD , 245 U.S. 151 (1917)

Logic vs. Decree (reprise)

36. Now, tell us all again, why do we need you (lawyers) to interpret laws for us?

Time does not now permit

37. In paragraph 18 you state: You will notice that I have not addressed any of the material on your web site specifically. Yes, I have noticed. We can get on with this after about the 21st.

38. Again, thanks for the time you have/are going to put in to this discussion. I hope that the removal of the Tax Honesty Movement article will wait until after we can pick this up.

Let's get back to the article

I'll throw in my two cents. Famspear was certainly trying to be helpful but I must strongly disagree with his comments above: "a much more efficient method of communication... would be to talk about it here at Talk:Tax protester". The talk page is not for working out legal issues, in fact, that's not what Wikipedia is for at all. Nearly all of this discussion is completely frivolous and should be carried out anywhere but here. Wikipedia is here to report facts from published reliable sources, and this talk page is reserved for how to improve this article. The only discussion should be about what evidence there is for various positions and what are the prominent viewpoints. We can't have any original research, we must comply with the verifiability policy, and then balance it with the neutral point of view. Again, anything beyond that needs to stay elsewhere. So unless evidence can be presented for the existence and prominence of this Tax Honesty movement being separate from the general tax protestors, then it doesn't get covered. And if it is covered, it only gets covered in relation to it's importance. Grand claims require greater evidence. So given that it is obvious the courts have upheld taxes repeatedly, any views against that must be presented as alternate views and not stated as facts. As much as we may not agree with the level of taxation (I don't) that doesn't matter at all. What we are tasked with here is producing a balanced article that characterizes significant viewpoints, not establishing truth. - Taxman Talk 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Taxman and other editors: Without getting into specifics about what I intended with respect to a discussion with Mr. Dale Eastman, the user at IP 4.158.201.8, I have to say that Taxman's point -- that this talk page should be reserved for efforts to improve the Tax protester article -- is well taken. Upon reflection, I agree that this talk page may not be the most appropriate place to dialog with Mr. Eastman. (As I had already told Mr. Eastman, it's pretty unclear whether I would be able to get to Mr. Eastman's commentary in any meaningful way, anyway.) However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman's comments posted above. Thanks, Famspear 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Taxman says: Grand claims require greater evidence. No Sir, they don't. They only require the same evidence any other claim requires... And you don't get to set that bar for the evidence required.
Taxman says: Nearly all of this discussion is completely frivolous... The magic government word that means If we address what you have before us, the US income tax, as presently executed will collapse. But then you know that "frivolous" is a Tax Honesty Movement "HOT button word."
Taxman is correct as to proper forum, which is why I put together my own page. [4]
I am mirroring my dialog Mr. Famspear. I have no problem with deleting my previous post to this forum each time I put something else here with a link to the page where I am recording the dialog. I have no problem with Mr. Famspear doing the same thing.
I didn't really want to put a debate discussion here. Famspear is correct that it will get read more so here, and thus offer more chance to educate. On the other hand Famspear may not be comfortable with loosing his anonymity if he emails me directly. (There are web page based mail utilities out there if that is a concern. In effect, they become anonymous remailers.)
Mr. Famspear says: However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman's comments posted above. That comment could be taken two different ways. Are you giving me a compliment?
Posted-Dale Eastman.

Regarding Mr. Eastman's response to Taxman's commentary above:

Mr. Eastman, in response to Taxman's statement that grand claims require greater evidence, states: "No Sir, they don't. They only require the same evidence any other claim requires... And you don't get to set that bar for the evidence required." Sorry, but under the rules of Wikipedia, grand claims do require greater evidence. Specifically:

Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.[5] (emphasis added).

When a claim is out of the mainstream, Wikipedia editors properly demand stronger sourcing than is otherwise demanded. This applies regardless of the truth or falsity of the claim. And, yes, Taxman and all the other editors of Wikipedia, in concert, essentially do get to set the bar for the evidence required. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works. Yours, Famspear 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In this regard, please also review the following:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.
[. . . ]
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. [6] (emphasis added).

Yours, Famspear 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Censorship Prevails At Wikipedia

Mr. Famspear, as a tax lawyer, is expected to engage the topic of the U.S. income tax after the 17th. of March. If the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is so wrong, he should be able to prove it.

Mr. Abramson is invited to join in that discussion. If Mr. Famspear refuses to engage, or fails to prove the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is wrong, By default, Mr. Abramson will be known as an IRS COLLABORATOR attempting to cover up the truth.

Please have your yes / no answers to the first 74 questions ready for posting by the 21st. Posted by Dale Eastman. Web site:[7]

p.s. After the 17th. you can post those answers on any current comment line of the Trial Logs Blog Spot. [8] That forum will not have any problem with us discussing these issues over there.

(sigh) - Yes, I and 290,000,000 other Americans are part of a conspiracy to assess income taxes against the few dozen people who realize that the IRS is really a holding company run out of Puerto Rico and Ohio is not really a state, and the U.S. ceased to exist in 1861 anyway (and the Republicans are really reptilian alien overlords). However, since I don't want the terrorists and the fascists and the communists coming in and blowing up my neighborhood and killing my family because my government has no money to defend the homeland, I think I'll go ahead and continue my part in the conspiracy, which involves surrendering a third of my income to taxes. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I and 290,000,000 other Americans are part of a conspiracy to assess income taxes against the few dozen people who realize that the IRS is really a holding company run out of Puerto Rico and Ohio is not really a state, and the U.S. ceased to exist in 1861 anyway (and the Republicans are really reptilian alien overlords) Ridicule doesn't change what the law says. Are you going to discuss what the law says after the 17th? You will even have a tax lawyer on your side of the debate unless he chickens out.
However, since I don't want the terrorists and the fascists and the communists coming in and blowing up my neighborhood and killing my family because my government has no money to defend the homeland, I think I'll go ahead and continue my part in the conspiracy, which involves surrendering a third of my income to taxes. Non sequitur.
Where and how do I get your attention to continue this? I am going to be extremely busy for the next two weeks and just will not have time until after the 17th to educate you and the lawyer. Noon, Main Street. After the 17th. You're good with ridicule, let's see how you do on reading comprehension. 74 questions. Yes or no. See you after the 17th. Posted by Dale Eastman. Web site:[9]
Hmmm, no thanks, I'm an intellectual property attorney, not a tax attorney. I'll leave the debates to the tax experts and those who care about what happens on the internet outside of Wikipedia. If you'd ever like to argue that the government has no power to grant trademarks, or that the USPTO is failing to properly apply the law, and that all of the federal court decisions assessing damages for trademark violations are part of a government conspiracy in furtherance of such an improper application, then I'll take you up on it. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Mr. Famspear, Today is April 21, 2006. I, Dale Eastman, am calling you out. Your choice of forums are as follows: You can email me directly; You can email me via an anonymous remailer utility; you can post your comments on the HaloScan portion of Trial Logs Blogspot; or You can post your comments on the misc.taxes news group. Your comments will be transferred to my web page basically unedited. I will correct typo's, hyperlink references, and format your text as best I can to best represent what you are stating. Just tell me what you want. My answers will be on that same page, and I will post an alert in the forum of choice to let you know when I have responded. I will look for your response here unless you choose to engage by email to me directly. I'm just a dumb ex-truck driver, so you should be able to make mincemeat out of me, eh? http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html

Dear Mr. Eastman: First of all, I'll decide what the "choice of forums" is. The forum might be something other than what you listed. Second, I'll decide what we're going to do in that forum. Third, if I were you I wouldn't be so eager to get to whatever it is you want to get to. You are not going to be a happy camper. For now, if you want, you can watch my talk page here in Wikipedia -- it'll probably be a while, but I'll try to get a message to you there in the next few weeks. Regards, Famspear 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted: http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html
DRE - 4/22/06 - 18:18 CDT.
No reply from Mr. Famspear, as of 4/29/06 - 18:24 CDT.
In other posts, Mr. Famspear has defended the conventional belief as the IRS would have others believe. That make Mr. Famspear a "defacto" IRS Agent.
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS [or its defacto agents]. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.
Silence can only be equated with fraud. Are you a fraud Mr. Famspear? http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html
DRE - 4/29/06 - 18:24 CDT.
You are suggesting, then, that User:Famspear has "a legal or moral duty to speak"? Since you have claimed no authority to impose on Famspear any legal duty, you must be referring to a moral duty. When does one have a moral duty to speak? To prevent an immoral act. Hence, Famspear only has a moral duty to speak if so doing would prevent an immoral act - but he has been asked by you to articulate his opposition to your position. Hence, if Famspear is a fraud, it must be because his failure to speak against your position (thus far) is a failure to speak against an immoral act. So, do you concede that your act of taking the position that income taxes need not be paid is an immoral act?
By the way, I saw the question you asked, "is labor property" - it is too simplistic to be answered with a "yes" or "no". As you may know, labor can have multiple meanings, as can property. Do you mean "labor" as in the process of bearing a child? Do you mean "property" as in real estate? I'm quite certain that the birth process is not real estate. Here are two serious questions for you: is it permissible for the state in which you live to amend its constitution so as to permit the state to establish a religion, and to enforce that amendment by enacting a law requiring you to cease the religious practices in which you engage, and instead take up a different religion sanctioned by the state? Is it permissible for the state in which you live to amend its constitution to provide that persons convicted of evading taxes in that state shall be executed by torture? bd2412 T 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted: http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/BD24121.html DRE - 4/30/06 - 01:10 CDT.
Reply edited. DRE - 4/30/06 - 10:42 CDT.

Subdividing out this article.

This article is rather lengthy, and should actually be broken down some. I propose having a single "overview" article on tax protesters with links to two sub-articles, one on tax protester history (covering the famous tax protesters, the adoption of the "Tax Honesty Movement" sobriquet, and the cons and scams) and one on tax protester arguments. Thoughts? bd2412 T 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! If BD2412 handles the mechanics of breaking the current article down into "sub-articles," I would certainly try to expand on both the proposed "history" sub-article and the proposed "arguments" sub-article. I "sub-mit" to everyone that having the two sub-articles would allow Wikipedia to do more justice to both "sub-topics." I would be glad to dive into the writing of the "sub-stance" of these sub-articles some time later this spring (right now I am partially "sub-merged" in the flood of tax season work). Well, now I'm running out of ideas for words with a "sub-prefix" (can you tell tax season is driving me crazy?)! Yours, Famspear 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The basic split is done - but all three articles now look a bit rough. I didn't move links over yet, that needs to be done as well (some may be moved, others simply copied). bd2412 T 19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

US-Centric

It'd be nice if someone could find some information on similar issues in other countries, or generalise the introduction better - the article is really only about Tax Protesters in the States as it stands. I'm sure similar behaviour has occured elsewhere (Australia, for instance)WilyD 13:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold... if you have some contributions or can find the facts about other countries then by all means add them... Drew1369 16:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tax_protester/Archive_4&oldid=851911536"