Hendrickson worshipper Patrick Mooney has it all figured out

[Famspear]

Loser Patrick Michael Mooney at losthorizons reports he has filed still another petition in U.S. Tax Court. In response to another contributor's comments, Mooney writes:

[ . . . . ]My next case in front of the Tax Court should give more clarity to your question. In filing my latest case, the court required a sworn statement from me that verified my Taxpayer Identification Number.

I modified the form, relaying to the Court that I was submitting my SSN at their request, but that the submission of that number was not to be construed in any way, shape, or form as an admission or acceptance of the legal status of "taxpayer", nor an endorsement of any third party allegations as to that status.

Furthermore, in my case before the US Court of Appeals, I asked the court to clarify how a non-taxpayer becomes liable to the federal tax when he has clearly and lawfully rebutted any allegations of a liability. I also asked them to prescribe a remedy where non-taxpayers may defend themselves from allegations of having a liability, when the law only seems to provide "recourse" to "taxpayers".

We'll see what happens...I think if other warriors filed suit in the District Court, then we might create substantial public pressure to force an answer on the issue...but if there are only a sprinkle of cases out there, the courts can "afford" to delay their reckoning until we are completely under a fascist dictatorship.

The window to act as a lawful citizen is still open...but closing more every day...please do something while there is still time! [. . . .

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1711

Recall that this is the same Patrick Michael Mooney who claims to believe that every defeat for Pete Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam confirms that Pete is correct.
Mooney's latest Tax Court case is at docket # 008128-09, filed on April 2, 2009 (pro se, of course).

Regarding Mooney's prior case (which he mentioned above), this is from the Tax Protester Dossier for Peter Hendrickson:

A penalty of $1,000 under section 6673 was imposed by the Tax Court on Hendrickson supporter Patrick Michael Mooney for presenting frivolous arguments. The court rejected his argument that his wages earned from a private employer were not taxable and his argument that the term "employee" was limited to "someone performing the functions of a public office." Patrick Michael Mooney v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21647-06, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (May 5, 2008), aff'd per curiam, No. 08-1899 (4th Cir. 1/21/2009).

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

But, of course, Patrick Michael Mooney has it all figured out this time......

[Doktor Avalanche]

[Nikki]

From the Tax Court's decision in 21647-06, Mooney v. Commissioner:

After due consideration, and for cause more fully appearing in the transcripts of the proceedings, it is

ORDERED that respondent's oral motion to dismiss this case for failure properly to prosecute made on April 21, 2008, is granted and this case is dismissed for petitioner's failure properly to prosecute . It is further

ORDERED that respondent's oral motion to impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1), I .R .C ., made on April 21, 2008, is granted . It is further

ORDERED and DECIDED that for the taxable year 2004 there are due from petitioner a deficiency in tax of $2,459 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a), I .R .C ., of $491 .80, and there is no addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), I .R .C ., due from petitioner . It is further

ORDERED and DECIDED that a penalty of $1,000 is awarded to the United States and is due from petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), I .R .C .

And the final note in the docket sheet is "U.S.C.A. 4 Cir. Mandate 04/07/09. Decision Affirmed".

The next Mooney v. Commissioner case to follow is 8128-09.

[absdes96]

Just so I am clear. Mooney moved his argument from not being an employee as the code defines it to not being a taxpayer as the code defines it?

The "non-taxpayer status" argument - isn't that what Otto Skinner promoted?

[notorial dissent]

Well, he’s at least partly right in that case, he isn’t “a taxpayer” since he very obviously didn’t pay any taxes, or he wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with, but that still doesn’t mean he isn’t an employee since obviously received money he didn’t pay taxes on. None of which means he won’t be paying fines for filing frivolously and still have to pay the taxes. So I guess you could say that an argument that is no argument, is no argument.

I guess he did figure it out after a fashion, except for the bits about having to pay taxes and that his arguments are dead losers, and that he is now going to get fined up one side and down the other. Yep, ole Pat's really got it all figured out.

[LPC]

Well, he’s at least partly right in that case, he isn’t “a taxpayer” since he very obviously didn’t pay any taxes, or he wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with,

I know (or hope) that this is humorous, but let me spell out what should be obvious.

As used in the IRC and court decisions, the word "taxpayer" is a relatively neutral term used to describe the person dealing with the IRS. If the IRS issues a notice of deficiency against someone, and that someone petitions the Tax Court, the Tax Court may refer to the someone as "the taxpayer" even if it is determined that the person owes no tax. To be a "taxpayer" is like being a "defendant" or a "party," it's not a determination of what you owe, just a term to differentiate you from the IRS.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#taxpayer for additional information.

[Judge Roy Bean]

As used in the IRC and court decisions, the word "taxpayer" is a relatively neutral term used to describe the person dealing with the IRS. ...

Just for fun, someone ought to point out to the TP/TD crowd that if they've ever paid sales tax on anything, they're taxpayers.

[Weston White]

Wrong, this is what taxpayer means as used within the IRC and subsequently in a courtroom when addressing issues pertaining to the IRC:

7701(a)(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Only a goof would think it needs any further explanation to make an FAQ about it.

The persistent use of this term in court serves to work the physique of the judge and those spectating, it is nothing other than a form of brainwashing. This is exactly why the DOJ depends so much upon name calling and belittling in these types of cases and this is why the judge themselves willingly participate in such poor tact. Introduce no real evidence in the case, just get everybody in the courtroom to question the defendant and acquire the view that the person is an utter scumbag of the Earth, though for no real known reason other than a vague subconscious want to punish the dirty bastard! It should really not be permitted in any court of law, unless specifically addressing a witness under testimony. This serves to wear down their opposition, while distaining their character to those observing; very weak and very desperate.

In court it is proper only petitioner to refer to opposing party as the defendant, the defense, or by their legal name, that is it, period. Check your feelings at the door! Of course you can just call in the circus and go to town, if you would like and let the defendant call the prosecution liars or fibbers, with each address, though see how many strikes they get from the judge! If they pulled that “taxpayer” crap with me I would move the court on each single instance to instruct the prosecution to properly address the defendant by their proper title in this case and I would separately motion that the prosecution now provide their evidence that the defense is the proper subject of the Internal Revenue Code for such purposes as their revenue for the tax year in question since they now again raised said issue. Afterward I would motion to dismiss the case for lack or want of evidence and unwillingness on the part of the prosecution to prove or provide support for their allegations. ...I bet they will stop referring to me as a taxpayer pretty damn quick!

[Weston White]

As used in the IRC and court decisions, the word "taxpayer" is a relatively neutral term used to describe the person dealing with the IRS. ...

Just for fun, someone ought to point out to the TP/TD crowd that if they've ever paid sales tax on anything, they're taxpayers.

Yea, but we are talking about 26 USC, for such purposes. And you just further proved why your TP and other such silly acronyms are complete nonsense. We all pay taxes, all of us, we each pay a dozen taxes every passing day. Therefore we are not protesting taxes. What we are protesting is the gross misapplication of one specific class of tax. And still nobody is able to provide proof that our allegations are ill-conceived, not even in you’re the weak bickering blasphemous lower court cases you cite so frequent and well... all of the historical evidence and intention actually leans in favor of supporting our own points of view.

[RyanMcC]

What we are protesting is the gross misapplication of one specific class of tax. And still nobody is able to provide proof that our allegations are ill-conceived, not even in you’re the weak bickering blasphemous lower court cases you cite so frequent and well... all of the historical evidence and intention actually leans in favor of supporting our own points of view.

Yes Weston, you are correct about the law. The congress, the courts, legal professionals, and even juries are all wrong. It's all a big conspiracy, all the Republicans and Democrats in office are working together to cover it all up and hide it from the American people. But you, unlike 90% of the population were smart enough to figure it all out.

You are right Weston, the rest of the world is wrong. The fact that tax protesters have never gotten a court to agree with their arguements is because of a massive conspiracy. And Weston, despite what your mother told you, the world really does revolve around Weston White.

Now run along..

[Weston White]

What we are protesting is the gross misapplication of one specific class of tax. And still nobody is able to provide proof that our allegations are ill-conceived, not even in you’re the weak bickering blasphemous lower court cases you cite so frequent and well... all of the historical evidence and intention actually leans in favor of supporting our own points of view.

Yes Weston, you are correct about the law. The congress, the courts, legal professionals, and even juries are all wrong. It's all a big conspiracy, all the Republicans and Democrats in office are working together to cover it all up and hide it from the American people. But you, unlike 90% of the population were smart enough to figure it all out.

You are right Weston, the rest of the world is wrong. The fact that tax protesters have never gotten a court to agree with their arguements is because of a massive conspiracy. And Weston, despite what your mother told you, the world really does revolve around Weston White.

Now run along..

What are you talking about? There is not a single person on this forum capable of seriously addressing the issue of direct taxation. Not one. Heck, you all can barely even address indirect taxation.

... Run along, how cute you are.

[Paul]

There is not a single person on this forum capable of seriously addressing the issue of direct taxation.

The constitution provides exactly one limitation on the power of Congress to impose a direct tax. Article I, Section 9, provides that "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The 16th amendment provides that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So, with respect to the tax on income imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, there is no "issue of direct taxation" because the only constitutional limitation imposed on Congress' authority to impose a direct tax does not apply to taxes on incomes.

It really is that simple, and you really are that stupid not to understand that.

[notorial dissent]

Well, he’s at least partly right in that case, he isn’t “a taxpayer” since he very obviously didn’t pay any taxes, or he wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with,

I know (or hope) that this is humorous, but let me spell out what should be obvious.

Sorry, trying to be facetious...........

[Weston White]

There is not a single person on this forum capable of seriously addressing the issue of direct taxation.

The constitution provides exactly one limitation on the power of Congress to impose a direct tax. Article I, Section 9, provides that "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The 16th amendment provides that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So, with respect to the tax on income imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, there is no "issue of direct taxation" because the only constitutional limitation imposed on Congress' authority to impose a direct tax does not apply to taxes on incomes.

It really is that simple, and you really are that stupid not to understand that.

Yes, though you do not understand or have any comprehension as what is actually meant by XVI Amendment incomes, or the grand distinctions between the various classes of direct taxes for that matter. Nor do you understand that Congress may only levy taxes for specific necessities and for no other reason.

[Red Cedar PM]

There is not a single person on this forum capable of seriously addressing the issue of direct taxation.

The constitution provides exactly one limitation on the power of Congress to impose a direct tax. Article I, Section 9, provides that "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The 16th amendment provides that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So, with respect to the tax on income imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, there is no "issue of direct taxation" because the only constitutional limitation imposed on Congress' authority to impose a direct tax does not apply to taxes on incomes.

It really is that simple, and you really are that stupid not to understand that.

Yes, though you do not understand or have any comprehension as what is actually meant by XVI Amendment incomes, or the grand distinctions between the various classes of direct taxes for that matter. Nor do you understand that Congress may only levy taxes for specific necessities and for no other reason.

"XVI amendment incomes" sounds like a nonsense term, I have never heard of it. The XVI amendment does not define income, it just says that an income tax is not subject to the apportionment requirement. The internal revenue code (title 26) lays out that income tax, in addition to other taxes. IRC 1 imposes a tax on taxable income. IRC 63 defines taxable income as gross income less deductions. IRC 61 defines gross income, which includes compensation for services. Compensation for services includes wages, or "work for pay" or "labor for pay" or whatever the hell you want to call the money you get for performing work. Find one court case, anywhere, that says otherwise. Otherwise you do not have a leg to stand on.

Please also provide some sort of citation to law or a court case that says congress may only levy taxes for specific necessities. I won't hold my breath.

What YOU don't understand, Weston, is that people here won't buy into your BS unless it is supported by actual court cases, or citations to law or regulations (which it isn't, which is why what you are saying is BS in the first place). You just saying that we don't understand what you are talking about does not make you correct.

[Nikki]

Weston:

You're wasting your time here.

Every single theory you have espoused has been already been adjudicated and found wanting. The ONLY exception to the previous statement is your allegation that there's no law which specifically makes you liable or defines you as a taxpayer.

There you are correct -- The words "Weston White" do not appear anywhere in any law, regulation, or IRS publication, except possibly in referrals to CI and DoJ.

You already owe enough in taxes penalties, and interest to almost cover my salary for the next year; although I see very little likelihood of the government ever collecting all of that from someone with no financial resources. Any rational person in your position would be spending the majority of his free time working to minimize the down-side of his previous actions. You, clearly, do not fall into the class of people commonly known as rational.

We will be watching your progress through the administrative and judicial processes with great interest and are awaiting status reports from you as to the success (or lack thereof) of your various planned actions motions, and statements.

[notorial dissent]

What YOU don't understand, Weston, is that people here won't buy into your BS unless it is supported by actual court cases, or citations to law or regulations (which it isn't, which is why what you are saying is BS in the first place). You just saying that we don't understand what you are talking about does not make you correct.

What Weston doesn’t understand or refuses to comprehend is that everyone here “recognizes” that what he is spouting is BS, and tells hims so, unlike the adulation he was getting over at LH before he fell from grace. The general BS detectors around have been highly honed, and when amateurs come to call it is quite obvious, except to them. When you can’t back up what you are saying except by proving you have zero reading comprehension it doesn’t work too well. Weston White, case in point.

[Weston White]

Weston:

You're wasting your time here.

Every single theory you have espoused has been already been adjudicated and found wanting. The ONLY exception to the previous statement is your allegation that there's no law which specifically makes you liable or defines you as a taxpayer.

There you are correct -- The words "Weston White" do not appear anywhere in any law, regulation, or IRS publication, except possibly in referrals to CI and DoJ.

You already owe enough in taxes penalties, and interest to almost cover my salary for the next year; although I see very little likelihood of the government ever collecting all of that from someone with no financial resources. Any rational person in your position would be spending the majority of his free time working to minimize the down-side of his previous actions. You, clearly, do not fall into the class of people commonly known as rational.

We will be watching your progress through the administrative and judicial processes with great interest and are awaiting status reports from you as to the success (or lack thereof) of your various planned actions motions, and statements.

And here I thought the whole lot of you actually had lives of your own. I was actually not aware that you all got off so much on the state of affairs of my life. I actually think I feel more sorry for you all than I do myself... not that I feel at that bad for myself. Knowing this actually makes me feel better.

That being said, I know the truth, I hold that in my heart. To me that is what matters in the end. If putting me in a metal cage is the best thing for somebody like me, then bring it on baby! Besides, there is always a tomorrow, there is always tomorrow.

[Weston White]

Red Cedar PM wrote:What YOU don't understand, Weston, is that people here won't buy into your BS unless it is supported by actual court cases, or citations to law or regulations (which it isn't, which is why what you are saying is BS in the first place). You just saying that we don't understand what you are talking about does not make you correct.

ROLF and that is complete and utter non-sense, because it would mean you can never establish a law or a fundamental until you first have a court case declaring or founding it... whatever "it" may or may not be.

[Weston White]

What Weston doesn’t understand or refuses to comprehend is that everyone here “recognizes” that what he is spouting is BS, and tells hims so, unlike the adulation he was getting over at LH before he fell from grace. The general BS detectors around have been highly honed, and when amateurs come to call it is quite obvious, except to them. When you can’t back up what you are saying except by proving you have zero reading comprehension it doesn’t work too well. Weston White, case in point.

Oh yea, that is why there is nothing proving you contentions, meanwhile, I have found source after source after source stating that taxing labor is a direct tax, specifically a direct tax, from the founding documents of our Nations to the POLLOCK case, the annotations for the XVI Amendment further supports my claims, while debunking yours. The works of the economists, professionals, and politicians around during the founding of our Nation, Cooley, Gallatin, Wharton, and Smith, their works do not support your beliefs at all. But believe what you want I really do not care that much, if you want to be a lost cause, be a lost cause, if that is what makes you happy and content. This is America after all.