Kneejerk commentary at LostHeads?

[Imalawman]

What cracks me up here in this case is that Darth and his followers have left no room for error. What I mean is this - if the court says, "no, your theory is wrong, that's not the law" (which they did in many cases - even 3 that I tried personally) they claim the "courts are corrupt". Thus, the only answer they will accept from a court is "yes, you're right! wow, we've all been so wrong these many years". They have predetermined a correct answer and if anyone and they mean anyone (even SCOTUS) they are grossly in error. They won't, even for a second, contemplate that they could be wrong. They would find the real practice of law to be very tough to handle. Every you're finding out that judges disagree with your interpretation of the law and you just have to accept it. Yes, that's right LHs - ACCEPT IT.

[Pottapaug1938]

Again, just as in the "lawsuit" against Doreen and me, the Tax Court DIDN'T actually dispute anything taught in CtC-- instead it deliberately contorted itself itself so as to avoid having to address what is taught in CtC, per Rusty's account. Thus, as Patrick observes elsewhere in this thread, the court thereby actually affirms that teaching. Remember, the court wouldn't dodge the contest if it had any way of winning it; that it DID dodge that contest must be afforded its due significance.

This represents a new low-water mark in the jurisprudential wading pool that is the tax denier movement.

According to PH, when a court rules against you but doesn't use exactly the words you think the court needs to recite in order to contradict you, not only does it not count as a rejection of your claims but it's actually an affirmation of your claims, because why else would the court "dodge the contest"?

This is, once again, beyond the delusional and well into the pathological.

This is all of a piece with what the :Browns like to try in their (ahahaha) court pleadings -- they claim that because you don't decide to waste your time rebutting their claims, your silence thereby affirms the truth of those claims.

[Famspear]

Again, just as in the "lawsuit" against Doreen and me, the Tax Court DIDN'T actually dispute anything taught in CtC-- instead it deliberately contorted itself itself so as to avoid having to address what is taught in CtC, per Rusty's account. Thus, as Patrick observes elsewhere in this thread, the court thereby actually affirms that teaching. Remember, the court wouldn't dodge the contest if it had any way of winning it; that it DID dodge that contest must be afforded its due significance.

This represents a new low-water mark in the jurisprudential wading pool that is the tax denier movement.

According to PH, when a court rules against you but doesn't use exactly the words you think the court needs to recite in order to contradict you, not only does it not count as a rejection of your claims but it's actually an affirmation of your claims, because why else would the court "dodge the contest"?

This is, once again, beyond the delusional and well into the pathological.

The world revolves around me...
The world must satisfy me...
The world must come to me...
I am beautiful...
I am intelligent...
I am the only thing that exists...
I am omnipotent...

Narcissistic personality disorder - the infantile (originating in infancy), delusional belief that one's "self" is omnipotent (all powerful), perhaps featuring a libidinal attraction to one's own body, with the qualification that the attraction is technically not an attraction to one's true "self", but is instead an attraction to a false image of one's "self" (the false image being the image of one's self as being all-beautiful, all powerful, all knowing). According to some psychiatric theorists, the disorder may in some cases be manifested by a suppression of facial and other physical body movements, in an attempt to reduce the subject's sensation or perception of the real "self" and to replace that perception with the "perception" of the false image that has been created in the subject's mind.

Look at the videos of Hendrickson. Listen to his voice.

Note: The preceding psychology lesson was brought to you free of charge, was brought to you by someone with zero expertise in psychology, and is worth the price you paid for it.

[.]

I sure wouldn't want to be a Crackhead who had filed 3 or 4 joint CtC returns facing (or soon to be facing) $30K or $40K of frivpens, looking forward to all of the events that will happen within, say, the next 24 months or so.

The USSC will again tell PH to take a hike on the civil case.

PH will be criminally convicted and incarcerated.

The Crackhead board will go dark.

The criminal conviction(s) will be affirmed on appeal.

The USSC won't grant cert on the criminal appeal, either.

Some miscellaneous collection of Crackheads on some new board will conclude, with no PH around to browbeat them into submission, that CtC is a scam and a crock and commence looking for their next false prophet to lead them further down the path of financial and other ruin.

Hard to distinguish between the frying pan and the fire.

[Famspear]

......The Crackhead board will go dark.....

No! No! Aagghhhhhh! Tell me it ain't so! Hours and hours of hilarity and mirth..... will we eventually be deprived of all this?

But wait! Maybe there'll be syndication? Re-runs on cable TV???!!!? Nostalgic DVD or CD box sets????

Oh, please don't tell me that losthorizons will go dark......

.....I really gotta get out more.....

[Pottapaug1938]

Don't worry, folks. Somewhere out there, a person with a single-digit IQ is perusing the Internet. He (or she) will come across one of the old TP/Loserhead sites, and decide that HE(SHE) has found the Magic Words that will make the Income Tax go "poof!" He (she) will assemble a band of followers, and we'll all take another trip around the TP mulberry bush.

[Famspear]

More on the lastest lies from Peter Hendrickson. This is adapted from a post I made at another web site today (Tuesday, 23 June).

Hendrickson is apparently lying when he says that the government is citing:

......irrelevant ‘dicta’ from cases like Latham and Sullivan, in which the courts explicitly say that the matter to which the government-cited dicta relates IS NOT actually before the court, and IS NOT reflected in the actual decisions…..

Hendrickson refers to what the “government cites”. I am not the “government,” so I am not the one doing the “citing” to which Hendrickson apparently refers -- but I suspect that what he is referring to what I'll discuss below.

First, in the Sullivan case, the Court stated:

In April, 1984, Sullivan filed with the IRS a letter entitled "Request for Refund of Income Tax," and two attached documents entitled "Income Tax Refund Statement for the Tax Year 1983," and "Business Income/Loss Statement for the Tax Year 1983." In the letter, Sullivan stated that he was a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government" for taxable year 1983. Sullivan therefore claimed that he owed no federal income tax, and he sought a refund of all taxes paid.

(bolding added).

The U.S. Court of Appeals responded with this statement:

To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no "wages" in 1983 because he was not an "employee" within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c) which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of "employee" includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.

The Court of Appeals further stated:

Courts uniformly have rejected as frivolous the arguments that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable income [ . . . ] or that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.

(bolding added).

This is not dicta, Pete. The Court of Appeals specifically referenced Mr. Sullivan’s April 1984 letter that contained THIS VERY ARGUMENT. The court rejected THIS VERY ARGUMENT. This is not “dicta”. The Court is not talking about a hypothetical set of facts that were not before the Court. The Court is TREATING THE CONTENTS OF THAT LETTER AS BEING PART OF MR. SULLIVAN’S CASE BEFORE THE COURT. No, the Court did not say – explicitly, or impliedly, or in any other way -- that this issue was somehow “NOT actually before the court”.

See Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986).

The Latham case? The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:

Latham's [proposed jury] instruction which indicated that under 26 U. S. C. §3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word "includes" is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.

See United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9180 (7th Cir. 1985) (bolding added).

The Court here was not merely discussing a theoretical idea, or a point of law that was not actually before the Court. Latham was arguing that the jury should have been instructed, at his trial, that the category of “employee” did not include privately employed wage earners. The Court of Appeals here is saying – no, that’s wrong. The Court was rejecting an argument put before the Court by the taxpayer. This is not “dicta.”

If Hendrickson is talking about the specific taxpayer arguments I just described above, then Hendrickson is lying to his readers. NOWHERE in EITHER of these two cases -- the Sullivan case and the Latham case -- did the courts "explicitly say that the matter to which the government-cited dicta [to use Hendrickson's words] relates IS NOT actually before the court, and IS NOT reflected in the actual decisions…..” with respect to the the taxpayer arguments shown above.

[LPC]

.....I really gotta get out more.....

Taking a cue from Lewis Carroll, I'd say that you can't get out more if you haven't yet gotten out at all.

[grixit]

Ten-Hut!

Alright, troops, you've heard the news. But don't be afraid, the deaths of your comrades merely proveswhat i've been saying all along-- these magic clown shoes make us impervious to bullets!

And the enemy knows that. That's why they had to cheat and use externally propelled ballistic projectiles instead!

[Famspear]

.....I really gotta get out more.....

Taking a cue from Lewis Carroll, I'd say that you can't get out more if you haven't yet gotten out at all.

Oh, I've been out many times. I stayed out too much -- way, way out too much and too far out there, if the truth be told -- and I almost got into serious trouble several times. For the past few years I've been overcompensating for that by staying in -- staying in too much, probably.

Life is a struggle. Marriage is a struggle. Guiding my son as he grows is a struggle. I think it all must mean something, though. Perhaps, something important.

What a long, strange trip it's been.

[LPC]

Marriage advice from my dad. "The only way to fight with a woman is with your hat. Grab it and leave until the dust settles."

Unless, of course, you are married to a woman with abandonment issues.

Then, if you have confrontation-avoidance issues, a strange (and potentially debilitating) feedback-loop can develop. Your wife becomes angry, so you withdraw emotionally. Your withdrawal creates more fear and more anger, which creates more withdrawal, which creates more anger, which creates more withdrawal, etc., etc, etc. A downward death-spiral to emotional catastrophe.

Of course, I have never experienced this personally(!), but I heard stories, and I believe that it is a possibility that is not to be disregarded or underestimated.

[Imalawman]

Parenting/marriage advice from my mom. "First you get their attention with the 2 x 4, then you draw the picture using the big crayons - so they can understand it."

Marriage advice from my dad. "The only way to fight with a woman is with your hat. Grab it and leave until the dust settles."

Parenting advice from dad. "Before you do something stupid, ask me about it. I have probably already done it and can tell you the bad outcome." "I brought you into this world, I can just as easily take you out of it."

And as both noted, "We sleep less than you do.........."

or as my brother-in-law likes to say, "never raise your hand to strike your child - it leaves your midsection unprotected" "People tell me that should spend more time with my kids, but I do spend time with them, I take my kids to places all the time, the trouble is... they keep finding their way back home..."