The Truth about Cracking the Code

[Famspear]

HAAAA, preserved for posterity. Jay, I mean Larry, I mean Famspire, are you getting enough sleep? Have you looked at your posts in a mirror? I think you're beginning to 'lose it.'

No, you don't think I'm beginning to lose it. And no, I'm still not "Jay."

No, I don't "want to believe" you have to read a book to understand it. I've found that reading that some-thing really does help me understand that some-thing.

No, obviously you're having trouble on the "understanding" front.

Yes, Jay we all self-determine.

I'm still not "Jay." And yes, Pete Hendrickson (for example) has done a lot of "self-determination", and we see where that has gotten him. And you, Harvester, have to some extent "self-determined" the course of your life. And it's not looking good.

That's BS detection in action.

In your case, no, it's not "BS detection in action". You don't "detect" BS - you swallow it eagerly -- by the bucket load.

So far, I've found your efforts at CtC-refutation to be . . lacking.

No, you haven't found my "efforts" to be lacking. And no, you have not found me to "deceive and lie." You've never even tried. You're just spouting your usual rhetoric, Squirt.

If you're relying on someone else for determination, well .. that could be why you're paying taxes you don't owe.

No, SquirtMeister, what we do is study law, using proper methods of legal analysis. And I don't pay taxes I don't owe.

You're an empty shell.

[LDE]

… we all self-determine. … Should I just sign this contract?

If significant money or obligations were concerned, I'd consult a lawyer before I signed a contract. Not to do so is very foolish.

[Brandybuck]

well I did get a cookie from "splcenter.org" from this site. Interesting that no one here has read this book. or maybe no one will admit to it ?

Yet another example of the nutters pulling shit out of their arses. My browser pops up a dialogs for EACH AND EVERY cookie. Yet nothing ever popped up for this site. All I have for here is the standard login cookie. Not only is this claim utter rubbish, it also betrays the utter ignorance of the nutters as to how the world works. If I were the SPLC and I wanted to collect cookies on the sly from another site, I would NOT request them for splcenter.org. I would simply have quatloos do the tracking for me. Duh! Let me repeat: Duh!

[LPC]

Yes, Jay we all self-determine. Is $429. a good deal for a laptop? Should I just sign this contract? Is this info reliable? We gather information, often from diverse sources including Quatloos, process & evaluate it. That's self-determination.

You can self-determine your own opinions and your own actions, but what you can't do is self-determine reality.

You can self-determine the laws of aerodynamics, and self-determine how to build your own plane based on your own laws, but that doesn't mean your plane will fly.

And you can self-determine your own tax laws, and self-determine how to file your own tax returns, but that doesn't mean your returns will fly in court.

How the courts rule is reality. Talking about a "correct" view of tax law that consistently fails in court is as silly as talking about a "correct" view of the laws of aerodynamics that consistently fails in the sky.

Most of what lawyers do is try to predict how courts will rule, and we predict how courts will rule by studying how judges think. When it comes to a CtC argument, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it will fail in court. I can tell you that because I have read enough of CtC to see that its reasoning, and its conclusions, are completely inconsistent with every opinion written by every judge in the history of the United States.

You can't see that inconsistency because you don't want to, or perhaps because you're not smart enough, but that's your problem and not mine, and the fact that you can't understand that you have a problem is really somewhat sad.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Yes, Jay we all self-determine. Is $429. a good deal for a laptop? Should I just sign this contract? Is this info reliable? We gather information, often from diverse sources including Quatloos, process & evaluate it. That's self-determination.

I don't read Harvester's posts but I couldn't resist copying this one from LPC and would just ask, what if your process of evaluation is flawed?

The real test of viability for any theory is to conduct an experiment under controlled circumstances. If the results of the experiment can be recreated by others, the theory may be sound.

If, on the other hand, none of the test results conclusively validate the theory and especially if the results are unexpected and dangerous, the fool who propounded the original question and answer shouldn't be relied on.

So who in the TP/scam proponent community can you rely on?

[Joey Smith]

There is a good reason why Pete never took his findings to an accredited tax attorney to review, or asked a law professor to review, or filed a test case against the IRS, etc. -- he knew all along that he was wrong.

Of course, he was making some bucks scamming suckers like Harvester into buying his snake oil, so why stop? Financial Darwinism.

[silversopp]

Take the "includes" argument for example. You and LPC have argued it's to be taken as "moreover" or "as well as" which simply doesn't hold water upon examination.

Let's try this excercise again Harvester.

You purchase a box with a picture of a remote control toy car on it. The box has a label which reads "Includes 2 AA batteries"

When you bring the box home and open it, what do you expect to find?

1) Only the car
2) Only the batteries
3) The car and batteries

I know a 5 year old whose expectations of the contents of the box matched the results. Are you smarter than a 5 year old?

[Cpt Banjo]

If Harv read a news account that said, "The crowd at the game included the mayor and his wife", would he deduce that only 2 people attended?

[Pottapaug1938]

If Harv read a news account that said, "The crowd at the game included the mayor and his wife", would he deduce that only 2 people attended?

Only if the game was played under Common Law....

[notorial dissent]

More to the point, you can tell that CTC is a load of horse manure by the simple, observable, recurring fact that every time CTC goes in to court it FAILS, and fails miserably and absolutely. Every aspect of it has been ruled nonsense at some point, from the base arguments to Pete’s extrusions of other court rulings, all wrong, all lost. This would tell any sane, intelligent person that the book was a load of crap, but then we are dealing with Harvey and the like, and enough said there, the question is self answering.

[Pottapaug1938]

More to the point, you can tell that CTC is a load of horse manure by the simple, observable, recurring fact that every time CTC goes in to court it FAILS, and fails miserably and absolutely. Every aspect of it has been ruled nonsense at some point, from the base arguments to Pete’s extrusions of other court rulings, all wrong, all lost. This would tell any sane, intelligent person that the book was a load of crap, but then we are dealing with Harvey and the like, and enough said there, the question is self answering.

What amuses me is that these buffoons explain away these losses by waving the "corrupt court" banner (or else the Orwellian "Defeat is Victory" banner) -- and then, when the next CtC idiot gets hauled into court, the same CtC arguments are presented to a court which the CtCers believe to be corrupt and thus unable and unwilling to accept the validity of the arguments.

[silversopp]

If you start with the belief that the courts are corrupt, then why would you bother wasting your time learning what the law states? All that matters is what the courts rule. So you're better off researching how the courts are likely to rule - and that brings the TP back to reality.
Accept that the courts are going to rule that the income tax is legal, and then work to change the politicians. Either get enough Congressmen to change the law, or get enough "patriot" judges appointed to start ruling the other way. That's how our system works.

[grixit]

If Harv read a news account that said, "The crowd at the game included the mayor and his wife", would he deduce that only 2 people attended?

Only if the game was played under Common Law....

Common Law Baseball, where the base order, number of strikes allowed, number of players allowed on a single base, size of the strike zone, dimensions of the ball, etc, are all subject to clarification by sovereigns. And the umpire's call is final-- unless they are corrupt or brainwashed or in the pay of the banksters, in which case you arrest them. Also-- what kind of slave mentality makes you believe you're confined to an arbitrarily designated space? CTB (Cracking the Bat) educated players know they are free to "think outside the triangle".

[notorial dissent]

If you start with the belief that the courts are corrupt, then why would you bother wasting your time learning what the law states? All that matters is what the courts rule. So you're better off researching how the courts are likely to rule - and that brings the TP back to reality.
Accept that the courts are going to rule that the income tax is legal, and then work to change the politicians. Either get enough Congressmen to change the law, or get enough "patriot" judges appointed to start ruling the other way. That's how our system works.

The problem being, that then they would have to actually do some work, expend some effort, possibly even learn something, and then could not fall back on their carefully crafted magic words and incantations, and that just isn't going to happen. As in the rest of their behaviors, they want something for nothing, and both physics, and magic do not allow for that, so they are SOL one way or another.

[Gregg]

There is a good reason why Pete never took his findings to an accredited tax attorney to review, or asked a law professor to review, or filed a test case against the IRS, etc. -- he knew all along that he was wrong.

Of course, he was making some bucks scamming suckers like Harvester into buying his snake oil, so why stop? Financial Darwinism.

You know, one of the things that convinced me Pete was a stupid criminal as opposed to just a criminal was how he actually "smoked his own dope" in this whole thing. He could have done fairly well by quietly folding like a cheap lawn chair when the IRS first started asking questions and just kept selling the book and leading the fools in. Kind of makes me think the $6,000 he was scamming from the IRS was more than the book sales, it was obviously the important thing to Pete.

[notorial dissent]

Of course it was, Pete's ego is so tightly wrapped up in this that there is no way he could not believe in it, after all he is a legal genius and super researcher and couldn't possibly be wrong. Pete has to be right, and everyone else has to be wrong, that is the way his reality works.

[Thule]

Common Law Baseball, where the base order, number of strikes allowed, .

"Strike? What do you mean? I refuse to contract with you under these terms."

[Harvester]

You purchase a box with a picture of a remote control toy car on it. The box has a label which reads "Includes 2 AA batteries"

When you bring the box home and open it, what do you expect to find?

[johnnyrie]

I'm fairly new to the forum, but would anyone quarrel with the statement "The term douche-bag includes Harvester."(I'm pretty sure someone's used this jest before, but like I said, I'm fairly new)? I guess whichever side of the fence you're on, it works. I know on one side of the fence, people might respect him for his douche-bagedness, but I don't think their beliefs are honestly held. They just like being antagonistic at best; anarchist more commonly.

I don't know how your forum works overall and whether this will make it through. I actually feel a little silly for even posting on this thread because it almost seems too obvious that Harvester is just trolling. However, I couldn't resist using the term douche-bag, as it has a certain anti-gravitas that I find irresistible. Everyone should use it more.

[Gregg]

I'm fairly new to the forum, but would anyone quarrel with the statement "The term douche-bag includes Harvester."(I'm pretty sure someone's used this jest before, but like I said, I'm fairly new)? I guess whichever side of the fence you're on, it works. I know on one side of the fence, people might respect him for his douche-bagedness, but I don't think their beliefs are honestly held. They just like being antagonistic at best; anarchist more commonly.

I don't know how your forum works overall and whether this will make it through. I actually feel a little silly for even posting on this thread because it almost seems too obvious that Harvester is just trolling. However, I couldn't resist using the term douche-bag, as it has a certain anti-gravitas that I find irresistible. Everyone should use it more.

Welcome to Quatloos! I doubt you'll find anyone who outright disagrees with you, but we do after all have some standards of decorum.

Oh, and I hereby fine you 5 Quatloos and decree you be thrown to the interns. (jk)