http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1176Keeping in mind these [the regulars at Quatloos] are not simply just uninformed citizens posting on a forum for a hobby or for their own personal interest, they are at least in some fashion associated with 'Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates'.
1. They misrepresent the several tax Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
No, we don’t. The Constitution says what we say the Constitution says. And the courts have ruled on what those tax clauses mean. We report on what the courts have ruled.
Weston, I have more knowledge of federal tax law in one fingernail than you will ever hope to have in your entire brain. And the only association I have with Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates is that I post in this Quatloos forum.
Unfortunately for you Weston, you probably do have enough knowledge (that is, enough awareness of your legal duty) with respect to federal income tax law to negate your Cheek defense if you are ever unfortunate enough to be charged with a federal tax crime. I hope for your sake you are never charged. If you do find yourself in that situation, it may well be up to a jury some day to decide whether you have a defense in the form of an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.
Well, the tax laws have changed over time. Congress has certainly “altered the original subjects and intended scope of federal taxation in America”. Congress has imposed all kinds of taxes. That may not be what you mean, though.2. They [the Quatloos regulars] claim that the tax laws have changed over time, so as to imply that Congress has altered the original subjects and intended scope of federal taxation in America.
Meaningless gibberish. First, the Sixteenth Amendment contains no definition of “income,” and the Amendment itself does not “intend” any particular definition of income. Second, various people have, however, argued with the government – in actual federal court cases -- over what the term “income” means in the context of the Amendment. The courts have ruled in those cases. Third, we report on what the courts have actually ruled. Fourth, no court has ever ruled that income means what Peter Eric Hendrickson says it means. Fifth, every court that has been presented with Hendrickson's Cracking the Code has rejected it.3. They deny the true definition of “incomes” as intended within the XVI Amendment.
We at Quatloos do not argue that there is some magical, mystical “Peter Hendrickson” law that differs from what the courts have ruled, or that Hendrickson's "law" is the "real" law and that the court rulings are somehow wrong. Under the U.S. legal system, the law is what the courts rule the law to be. That’s the case for property law, for contract law, for criminal law, for tort law – and for tax law.
No, not exactly. The courts label these people as “tax protesters,” and the courts have been doing so in actual, formal court documents since at least the mid-1970s. It’s not a question of “truthfulness.” It’s a question of the proper use of a legal term. Quatloos regulars did not “coin” the term. The term “tax protester” is the legal term the courts use. Get over it.4. They label all persons seeking honesty in taxation as “Tax Protesters”, when in fact they have (in most all cases) no sort evidence of any sort indicating such an allegation being even remotely truthful.
Gibberish. What are you, a Eighth Grader? Nobody “denies” the Declaration of Independence, etc., whatever that is supposed to mean. And our “chosen professions” have nothing to do with the validity of the federal income tax law.5. They deny the Declaration of Independence and any Constitutional Amendments that does not conform to the continued support of their chosen occupations.
I wish I had a nickel for every time one of these droolers tries to make this laughable argument that we are just trying to uphold our “chosen professions.”
You see, Weston White, when you make this kind of argument, you only reinforce the point that you are a phony.
Uh, Weston, you don’t know anything about rules of statutory construction, so let’s not have a cow about it, OK? The courts use rules of statutory construction. You do not.6. They discard or modify the rules of Statutory Construction, whenever such rules do not favor their perceptions.
And the courts have ruled the way we say the courts have ruled -- using rules of statutory construction.
Discarding the Codification process? Federal Register? More gibberish. The courts determine what the law is – in actual court decisions. We report on what the courts rule.7. They [the Quatloos regulars] do not follow the correct process of established federal law, such as discarding the Codification (Federal Register, PTOA, etc.) process as so required.
Baloney. And nobody believes that “all laws are just.” But your statement exposes your own dishonesty, Weston.8. They believe that all laws are just, so as to imply even if a law is unconstitutional it is still valid as it has been made into law.
In reality, you believe yourself that the federal income tax laws are unjust, and you make phony arguments that those tax laws are therefore invalid, or that the laws do not really mean what we say the laws mean. That is intellectual dishonesty on your part. The mere fact that a law is “unfair” does not make that law “not the law.”
No, Weston, you are full of baloney. You are a phony. So is your “guru.” And if you actually do what your guru says to do about your own federal income taxes, you are a crooked phony.They of course would never admit to these charges.
Weston, if I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut at this time. The feds are watching you and everyone else over there. You are the ones who may be trouble, not the Quatloos regulars. The more you write in the losthorizons forum, the more evidence you pile up against yourself.
Things are only going to get worse for you. Pete Hendrickson is now facing a criminal trial (re-set to February 10, 2009, if I recall correctly). Regardless of whether Pete is convicted or acquitted at that trial, he is wrong about the federal tax law. The government is right. And regardless of how the trial turns out, his personal tax problems will continue. It's only going to get worse.
