User talk:Famspear

This user may have left Wikipedia. Famspear has not edited Wikipedia since 18 September 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

6 Dec 2005 - 13 Dec 2005 23 Dec 2005 - 10 Mar 2006 23 Mar 2006 - 11 May 2006 12 May 2006 - 5 Jun 2006 15 Jun 2006 - 8 Jul 2006 17 Jul 2006 - 5 Aug 2006 5 Aug 2006 - 17 Jan 2007 15 Jan 2007 - 8 Feb 2007 8 Feb 2007 - 11 Apr 2007 11 Apr 2007 - 7 Sep 2007 Sep 2007 - Apr 2008 Apr 2008 - May 2008 partial Apr 2008 - June 2008 partial

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)"[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)"[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

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

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^[1] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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