John J. Bulten's "Bizzaro Bulten World" BS

[Famspear]

John J. Bulten is now "teaching" other Crackheads at losthorizons how to make a Freedom of Information Act request. Check out his Bizzaro Bulten World form letter demanding that the IRS do this and that:

Dear IRS:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552 and regulations). I hereby request that copies of all the following documents be provided to me:

(1) Copies of all the Form 4340s, Certificate of Assessments and Payments, prepared about me, John J Bulten (assigned Social Security account number XXXXXXXXX), for any year from 1999 to 2007.

(2) If no such Form 4340s exist to support any given year from 1999 to 2007, copies of all the relevant pages of all the Form 23Cs or RACS-006s prepared about any amounts of any assessments relating to me, John J Bulten, for each unsupported year, including all the pages which refer to assessments relating to me, and all the pages that contain any signatures.

(3) Copies of all the 26 USC 6303 notices, stating amounts of assessment and demanding payment thereof, prepared about me, John J Bulten, relating to any assessment in any document in categories (1)-(2), for any year from 1999 to 2007.

If no such supporting documents of any category (1)-(3) exist for any given year from 1999 to 2007, your response must state this for each document category and unsupported year.

This is not the first such request; accordingly, it will be insufficient to provide a mere transcript of the account and written explanation of the information (Document 11734) as described in Internal Revenue Manual 11.3.13.9.4(4).

Reply to the above address is demanded with postmark prior to 2008-12-08, being 20 business days from the date of this letter, and either must constitute a full response by that completion date, or must provide a completion date (defaulting to 2008-12-08) by which a full response will be postmarked, in accord with 5 USC 552(a)(6)(A). Failure to provide either of document categories (1)-(2) for any given year by the completion date shall constitute admission that neither a valid assessment nor a summary record of assessment (on any of Forms 4340, 23C, or RACS-006) exists for the given year that satisfies 26 CFR 301.6203-1 (which requires that a summary record of assessment be signed by an assessment officer). Failure to provide document category (3) for any given assessment and year by the completion date shall constitute admission that no notice of assessment amount exists for the given assessment and year that satisfies 26 CFR 301.6303-1 (which requires that a notice of assessment amount state the amount and demand payment thereof). Provision of documents for any given assessment and/or year shall constitute admission that no other documents exist responsive to the request beyond those provided.

I estimate that your search time will be no more than 1 hour and your duplication will involve no more than 50 pages. If you estimate that search time will be more than 2 hours or duplication will involve more than 200 pages, please inform me first. These documents are for my personal, educational, noncommercial, nonscientific use, and I have a material interest in the information contained in these documents.

The making of the request [by John J. Bulten] is not to be considered or construed as an admission [by John J. Bulten] of "taxpayer" status or of liability for any tax or penalty; and a refusal [by the Internal Revenue Service] to cooperate with the request will be recognized [by John J. Bulten] as an acknowledgment [by the IRS] that the requester [i.e., Bulten] is not, in fact, liable for the tax or penalty alleged to be due and owing or otherwise collectible in any manner on the Form 668-W received. I make these demands for two reasons: to establish the existence of the alleged assessments and notices, and to determine for myself the complete compliance of the alleged assessments and notices with all related provisions of law. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

John J Bulten

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =9568#9568

This verbiage evidences some typical tax protester narcissistic thought patterns (in particular, the bolded material above). Some tax protesters have the mistaken idea that they can unilaterally impose legal obligations on IRS employees to respond in a certain way, by a certain date, etc. Bulten, for example, seems to believe that somehow merely stating, in a letter, that an IRS failure to comply will negate his liability, if any, for taxes, penalties, etc., will magically achieve that result if the IRS does fail to comply.

EDIT: Another possibility is that Bulten does not really believe what he is writing, but believes (or hopes) that some IRS employee who reads his letter will somehow be so "scared" by his pseudo-legalistic gibberish that the employee will expedite Bulten's request, moving it ahead of the hundreds or thousands of other requests in the pipeline.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I wonder what would happen if he gets it back marked "accepted for value, returned for value."

[Cpt Banjo]

I'm thinking about sending Bulten a letter demanding that he furnish me the quintillionth digit of the decimal expansion of pi within five days, and advising him that his failure to do so constitutes an irrevocable assignment from him to me of all his worldly possessions, including his tinfoil hat and IMF decoder ring.

[Dezcad]

Maybe JJ will come back here and grace us with his explanation of this. His prior visits were, if nothing else, entertaining.

[Famspear]

I'm thinking about sending Bulten a letter demanding that he furnish me the quintillionth digit of the decimal expansion of pi within five days, and advising him that his failure to do so constitutes an irrevocable assignment from him to me of all his worldly possessions, including his tinfoil hat and IMF decoder ring.

I believe Hendrickson and Bulten are smart guys. And it's sad.

For example, I can tell that Hendrickson is "smart," based on some of the things that Hendrickson writes and says about tax law. The fact that these guys can simultaneously analyze some parts of the law correctly -- and yet be so completely out to lunch, so completely and hilariously wrong with the rest of it, illustrates that the tax protester delusion does indeed often have a "psychopathology" component. A smart guy like Bulten can write such nonsense only where there is some part of his mind that has gone seriously awry. The human capacity for self-deception is great.

But Hendrickson and Bulten, although they are "smart," apparently lack meaningful training and relevant experience in the field of taxation or law.

Now, compare them to people like Joe Banister, Sherry Peel Jackson, Tommy Cryer, and so on: these are people who are not only intelligent, but who are actually trained in law or accounting, to the extent that the training itself (and real world experience) should have kept them from sinking into the delusion. But the psychopathology of the Banisters, the Jacksons, and the Cryers of the world has "overcome" whatever beneficent effects their education and experience should have provided them. It's sad.

[Joey Smith]

Admit that the world is flat. If you do not answer within thirty (30) days, then the world will be flat.

This is the sort of *logic* that pervades the TP movement: First, consisting of the fallacy that if there is no response that the failure to respond automatically results in a binding admission; and, second, consisting of the fallacy that an implicit admission acts to alter reality.

Has this ever worked for a TP?

No, even in thousands of attempts. Yet, the lemmings keep trying, as if to obsessively validate Einstein's definition of stupidity as being the repetition of the same experiment over and over and each time expecting a different result.

[ClobberroTestii]

I believe Hendrickson and Bulten are smart guys.

"Smart" as in "you can't fool me 'cause I'm too stupid!"
Seriously, I agree to a point. But both of them have a serious arrogant streak; the kind of arrogance one might expect of a "self appointed high priest guru".

[Quixote]

I suspect that Bulten's proposed FOIA request is intended to impress his fellow CTC worriers, whom he must hold in very low esteem. Bulten is smart enough and has been playing the TP game long enough to know that his suggested FOIA request will, with rare exceptions, result in no documents being provided. Forms 4340, as Bulten knows, would exist only if the taxpayer had been involved in litigation. Even the dimmest TP knows that 26 USC 6303 notices are computer generated and that IRS does not retain copies. Iirc, summaries of information that happen to include a particular taxpayer's data are not subject to FOIA. So he would get a copy of the (almost meaningless) RACS 006 only if the Disclosure Officer chose to go the extra mile for him. I say almost meaningless because nothing on it would directly associate it with any specific taxpayer's assessment.

I suspect Bulten knows all that, but is counting on his audience knowing none of it. I don't know why JB wants the faithful and clueless to send pointless FOIA requests, but that is the only possible motivation for his post.

[Bud Dickman]

John J. speaks at losthorizons:

Too bad I don't have any desire to determine what "ASITStands" is trying to say in context, because it is hardly comprehensible on one reading over here. Better to just let them rant.

When I have in the past made every effort to "discuss the issues openly" with them, about two years back, I discovered that Quatloos considers logical argument to consist of heavy doses of strawman premises, illogical derivations, and foregone conclusions. (For instance, one of their oft-cited foregone conclusions is that PH's approach to the tax was itself a foregone conclusion-- which proves they know what one is.) The purpose is not in any way to discuss issues openly, but to enjoy oneself ridiculing others. I then abandoned my attempt to convince anyone by rational argument and limited my forum participation there to that latter purpose instead.

This is just another reason PH is correct to warn people not to waste a single CPU cycle going anywhere else for definitive information. While Q pretends to be a source of info, it's really just a bloggers' club. It probably has a more nefarious purpose too, but why bother theorizing?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0923#10923

[gezco]

I believe Hendrickson and Bulten are smart guys.

"Smart" as in "you can't fool me 'cause I'm too stupid!"
Seriously, I agree to a point. But both of them have a serious arrogant streak; the kind of arrogance one might expect of a "self appointed high priest guru".

You would have to have a serious arrogant streak to maintain his position. His basic premise is that 99+% of Attorneys and CPA’s are wrong and he is right. That takes a heck of a lot of arrogance to pull off.

[LaVidaRoja]

Bizzare --- In the 1980's. I worked in Disclosure. We received this type of request, and struggled to respond to them. After a few of them reached National Office, we were provided with standard language. The IRS has been telling these types of requester that they are NOT going to change their tax liability by using this type of letter for over 20 years. What makes Bulten think he can work something with this now?

[notorial dissent]

What makes Bulten think he can work something with this now?

Pete and Bulten both live in a carefully crafted fantasy world where up is down and right is left, and the gibberish Pete spouts makes sense and is right, so, therefore, if they file a FOI request it will magically change things to what they want it to be instead of what it is. They are no more capable of reading the information they will eventually get back and making sense of it than they are of reading anything else and making sense of it. They and a large segment of the seriously looney seem to think that there is something magical in such an information request, but then these are also the people who are firmly convinced that includes really means excludes, so what can you do?

The one thing I have never been able to reconcile is the belief that one set of papers has magical powers while another set, from the same source even, has no authority behind it.

[ASITStands]

John J. Bulten's latest project, entitled, CRACKING THE COURT.

He touts the "unstinting research of warrior Randy White."

It appears he's moving on an argument regarding direct/indirect taxes, and in the letter, he alleges, "A capitation tax falls immediately on an individual’s earnings."

Here's an excerpt of John "gushing" about the research: (Emphasis in the original.)

Friends, any CtC filer can get on the boat now and join the critical mass preparing to make appearances in court. This is what I have been waiting years for. The first government responses have been received in Randy's cases, and they suggest to me the light is green for us to rush in. No matter whether and how the lower courts deny these cases, no matter whether and how the Supreme Court ignores them, we have the power to keep filing them, and so we can declare victory today.

The argument of these cases is concise and direct. Staying entirely away from administrative procedure, they argue and demonstrate solely that the IRS has never answered the question of how it administers the tax as an indirect tax or excise, in harmony with Constitution 1.9.4, Amendment 16, and Brushaber. Because we are challenging the IRS's allegation of lien directly-- the jugular-- the IRS has the burden of proving its procedure was correct. That is the question on which we have petitioned for redress and been unanswered, and that is the question that is likely to stay unanswered, because ....

What did the government argue in response? That Collins, a 10th Circuit case, authorizes an unapportioned direct tax!

Do you realize the magnitude of that response's significance? It's a loser from the start! Ever since Brushaber, the income tax has only been legitimate if it stays an indirect tax, in that the court said as much. Brushaber has been cited 50 times in later tax cases as the definitive income tax case. Other circuits have recognized, as Pete has, that the income tax is indirect. But the feds have jumped to an out-of-context 10th Circuit cite to make their holding! (It's my opinion that Collins uses the word "direct" in its ordinary, not Constitutional, sense, anyway, and thus it is only saying the tax is unmediated rather than circuitous; but that's irrelevant.) By arguing the "un-Constitution", the feds have admitted we have reached the jugular, because they have nothing left but the un-Constitution. "Nothing will help you."

If the "U.S." attorneys are now admitting their total abandon of 1.9.4 and A16, they are dead in the water. There is no alternative, because sooner or later the courts will be shown to be inconsistent on the direct/indirect question, and the Supremes will be compelled to speak, and if they ignore us, we can keep suing, because the Supremes are their own appeal court.

I haven't found anything on this "Randy White." I'm looking for the case on Pacer.

[LPC]

No matter whether and how the lower courts deny these cases, no matter whether and how the Supreme Court ignores them, we have the power to keep filing them, and so we can declare victory today.

[snip]

What did the government argue in response? That Collins, a 10th Circuit case, authorizes an unapportioned direct tax!

Do you realize the magnitude of that response's significance? It's a loser from the start!

So Bulten's argument is a winner even if the courts all rule against them, and the government's argument is a loser even though the court's all rule in its favor?

That really is Bizarro world.

[ASITStands]

The only Randy White I know played pro football for the Dallas Cowboys - Randy Lee White (born January 15, 1953 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) attended the University of Maryland from 1971 to 1974, and played professionally for the Dallas Cowboys from 1975 to 1988. He is a member of both the College Football Hall of Fame and the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

The "other" Randy White is of Paula and Randy White fame. Don't think it's him.

[Duke2Earl]

Does anyone think Mr. Bulten is a good prognosticator of what courts will rule? His track record so far leaves me a bit dubious of his ability to predict court actions.

[LPC]

The only Randy White I know played pro football for the Dallas Cowboys - Randy Lee White (born January 15, 1953 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) attended the University of Maryland from 1971 to 1974, and played professionally for the Dallas Cowboys from 1975 to 1988. He is a member of both the College Football Hall of Fame and the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

The "other" Randy White is of Paula and Randy White fame. Don't think it's him.

Hendrickson and Bulten have referred to "Randy White" as a "independent paralegal" in Florida.

[ASITStands]

Having reviewed the cases in the three districts in Florida, I am of the opinion the case in question is not in the name of "Randy White" but someone for whom he's acting as paralegal.

The Northern District of Florida lists no litigants remotely similar to "Randy White."

The Middle District of Florida lists the following:

White, R.
White, R. Michael
White, R. S.
White, R.E.
White, Randy

The last name involves several cases, one of which is open, but it's a tobacco liability claim.

The Southern District of Florida lists the following:

White, R.
White, R. C.
White, R. O., Jr.
White, R. O.
White, Randall
White, Randy

No open cases.

For anyone who might be reading this from Lost Horizons, it's always important actually read a case, instead of accepting someone's summary about it. And, the results are pending.

Readers should remember Robert John Welzel or 'rwelzel.'

[wserra]

Hendrickson and Bulten have referred to "Randy White" as a "independent paralegal" in Florida.

As we went through with Heidi, Florida law prohibits "independent paralegals". Florida requires that anyone who holds him/herself out as a "paralegal" be working under the direct supervision of a specific attorney.

Of course, when you sell oceanfront property in Kansas, you probably don't see any need to strain at gnats.

[ASITStands]

As we went through with Heidi, Florida law prohibits "independent paralegals". Florida requires that anyone who holds him/herself out as a "paralegal" be working under the direct supervision of a specific attorney.

He couldn't legally hang his shingle and do business, but he might work as a "ghostwriter."

Not sure that's legal in Florida if caught. Might still be subject to "unlicensed practice."