LH Forum rule changes

[Dezcad]

After some people questioned the banishment of Dr C from the LH forums, Petey posted a reply referencing Forum Rule Changes here.

As an admirer of irony, I give you a quote from that page about the LH forum:

The forum is NOT here to be a playground or recruiting zone for anybody's wacky theory about the law, however sincerely that theory may be clung to.

[rachel]

Oh!!!
Dont cut yourself short!

The forum is NOT here to be a playground or recruiting zone for anybody's wacky theory about the law, however sincerely that theory may be clung to. I will say this plainly and simply: CtC has the tax pegged, cold.

Pegged a bullseye to a summary judgement.

"Thats some funny stuff. I dont care who you are"
Cable Guy

[Disilloosianed]

I saw that....Note that even some of the locals are wondering why there can't be a debate on the issues anymore. I dare say PH has slit his own throat.

[Imalawman]

This further proves that PH is really feeling desperate now. Not only will he lose his case and his money train (what little it was), but he'll also have sanctions heading his way. After reading the Gov't's brief, he can't be that optimistic.

Contrary to his "pegged, cold" assertions, I think he sees that the end is near. (and he could also be thinking that criminal charges might be forthcoming)

[Famspear]

Here's another excerpt from Pete's revised "rules":

Or, perhaps worse still, how common it is for people to submit to their years of training in subordination and respond to the opinion of a judge (appointed by, and from the ranks of, the very same folks that have been systematically exploiting ignorance of the tax and other areas of law for decades) as being the measure by which the truth is determined. Less mindless but just as bad, others conclude that once the judiciary has expressed itself-- rightly or wrongly-- the contest is over, and we must all just make the best of our inescapable fate as serfs...

Yes, even after Pete will have presented his best case and litigated it as far as the courts will allow him, and the judges will have ruled against him, the contest will not yet be over! Pete can always ask for tax advice from my sister's dog, who knows more about taxation than Pete does.

[Famspear]

Here's another gem from Pete Hendrickson:

Any "theory" which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC is simply wrong, and doesn't merit a single line of text in its defense or a moment's attention from anyone

http://www.losthorizons.com/ForumRules.htm

So forget about posting the holdings in actual court cases. And for heaven's sake, forget about the rulings in Pete's own cases. Those are just "theories" in conflict with what is taught in CtC.

I'd like to see this blowhard eventually stewing in the same cell with blowhard Edward Lewis Brown -- for a long, long time. I imagine that after a few weeks with these two forced to listen to each other all day, it would start sounding like the Blowhard Olympics at the Graybar Hilton.

[ASITStands]

This further proves that PH is really feeling desperate now. Not only will he lose his case and his money train (what little it was), but he'll also have sanctions heading his way. After reading the Gov't's brief, he can't be that optimistic.

Contrary to his "pegged, cold" assertions, I think he sees that the end is near. (and he could also be thinking that criminal charges might be forthcoming)

Now, that's pegged, cold!

That's how I see it as well.

[Dr. Caligari]

Or, perhaps worse still, how common it is for people to submit to their years of training in subordination and respond to the opinion of a judge (appointed by, and from the ranks of, the very same folks that have been systematically exploiting ignorance of the tax and other areas of law for decades) as being the measure by which the truth is determined. Less mindless but just as bad, others conclude that once the judiciary has expressed itself-- rightly or wrongly-- the contest is over, and we must all just make the best of our inescapable fate as serfs.

This is a major turning point-- the true beginning of the end for LH. Up to now, they have never argued that the courts are wrong, only that the proper arguments have not been made or the proper evidence has not been submitted; they have always insited that, when Pete's case is finally heard, he will prevail because CtC is "the law."

Pete is now recognizing that he will never win in court, and has shifted to the argument that "I am right even though I am going to lose in court." That argument, of course, misunderstands exactly what "law" is. As Holmes wrote in The Path of the Law:

Take the fundamental question, What constitutes the law? You will find some text writers telling you that it is something different from what is decided by the courts of Massachusetts or England, that it is a system of reason, that it is a deduction from principles of ethics or admitted axioms or what not, which may or may not coincide with the decisions. But if we take the view of our friend the bad man we shall find that he does not care two straws for the axioms or deductions, but that he does want to know what the Massachusetts or English courts are likely to do in fact. I am much of this mind. The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.

The very first paragraph of that seminal work explains why readers of LH should be more concerned with the courts' view of the law than with Hendrickson's opinion:

When we study law we are not studying a mystery but a well-known profession. We are studying what we shall want in order to appear before judges, or to advise people in such a way as to keep them out of court. The reason why it is a profession, why people will pay lawyers to argue for them or to advise them, is that in societies like ours the command of the public force is intrusted to the judges in certain cases, and the whole power of the state will be put forth, if necessary, to carry out their judgments and decrees. People want to know under what circumstances and how far they will run the risk of coming against what is so much stronger than themselves, and hence it becomes a business to find out when this danger is to be feared. The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.

[Famspear]

CaptainKickback wrote:

As for John J. Bulten, I think he has pulled a Mrs. Saddam Hussein - you see the writing on the wall, you know what is going to happen, so get out of the way, lay low, get affairs in order and lead a reasonable life and pretend all the other stuff never happened.

Also known as: "sifflant en passant le cimetière"

[LPC]

"Rfuselier" finally got banned.

[Dr. Caligari]

"Rfuselier" finally got banned.

About time; he made Pete and the rest of them look sane by comparison.

[LPC]

Any "theory" which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC is simply wrong,

Of course, nobody at LH can actually tell you "what is taught in CtC." They can tell you the *conclusions,*which is that they aren't employees, aren't employed, and don't received wages, but they can never explain how they reached those conclusions, or how those conclusions negate section 61, given that the actual language of the Internal Revenue Code contradicts them at every turn.

And, if you try to question or challenge any of their conclusions, you're banned from the forum.

The forum is therefore increasingly surreal, as they talk about talking about CtC, but don't actually talk about it.

[Quixote]

This is a major turning point-- the true beginning of the end for LH. Up to now, they have never argued that the courts are wrong, only that the proper arguments have not been made or the proper evidence has not been submitted; they have always insited that, when Pete's case is finally heard, he will prevail because CtC is "the law."

Even before this, Pete knew CTC was not the law. If he actually thought he was right, he would have dealt with the issue of gross income head on. Instead, he concentrated on an issue that was complicated, but completely irrelevant, the meaning of "employee" and whether or not he received "wages". Also, no one could seriously believe, as Pete pretends to do, that the IRC of 1986 is really the Tax Act of 1862, as amended.

[LPC]

Oops. It looks like I've been banned also. (For the second time.)

From what Bulten has posted in the "Trolls" thread, this is the message about the Spitzer decision that got me banned:

- And Dr. C, working for pay in the private sector in one of the 50 states is not taxable in itself.

Why not?

Nor was this the court's ruling.

According to the court's opinion:

1. Rollins College paid Spitzer $86,493.00.

2. Spitzer admitted receiving the $86,493.00.

3. Spitzer claimed that the amounts he received "were not 'wages,' and therefore were not taxable."

4. Spitzer submitted an affidavit that "he had received 'private-sector earnings' from Rollins College for work that he performed in 2004."

5. Spitzer submitted two affidavits that "consisted of a legal conclusion that the payments from Rollins College were non-taxable 'private-sector earnings,' and not taxable wages or gross income."

6. "Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party [which would be Spitzer in this case], presents no genuine issue of material fact and compels judgment as a matter of law in favor of the moving party [which would be the United States in this case]."

7. "Spitzer failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact."

8. The district court "committed no error in granting the Government's motion for summary judgment."

Add this all up, and it's clear that the 11th Circuit believed that, even if you assume that every FACTUAL allegation of Spitzer were true, and that his payments came from private-sector work, the United States was still entitled to summary judgment AS A MATTER OF LAW.

You can believe that the 11th Circuit is wrong if you want, but the court clearly believed, and clearly ruled, that working for pay in the private sector is taxable.

Notice that I was careful not to claim that the court was right, but only that the court had clearly ruled that working for pay in the private sector *IS* taxable.

But Bulten didn't want to hear that, so I'm out of there (again).

[Dr. Caligari]

Oops. It looks like I've been banned also. (For the second time.)

Congratulations! PH himself has posted this on his site:

"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him.
It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself."

-Joseph Sobran

[Famspear]

Imalawman wrote:

This further proves that PH is really feeling desperate now. Not only will he lose his case and his money train (what little it was), but he'll also have sanctions heading his way. After reading the Gov't's brief, he can't be that optimistic.

Contrary to his "pegged, cold" assertions, I think he sees that the end is near. (and he could also be thinking that criminal charges might be forthcoming)

Excellent points! And, as things worsen for him, we might see a bit more of Blowhard Pete's feelings, his emotions, coming out at losthorizons. One of the characteristics of narcissistic personality disorder (ahem, here I go again, with my amateur psychology) is that when the subject is pressed to the wall, when the delusion (the infantile, delusional belief that one's "self" is omnipotent) can no longer be maintained in the face of oppressive real world events, the subject will decompensate -- going into depression, into withdrawal, possibly accompanied by a real or perceived physical illness, feelings of fatigue and malaise. Of course, we in Quatloos may not be able to see all that but, as Imalawman and others are noting, we are already seeing some of it (e.g., in the frustration clearly evident in Pete the Blowhard's commentary on the updating of his banning policy, and in the very change in the banning policy itself).

[Famspear]

boast -

to talk about deeds, abilities, etc., [ . . . ] in a manner showing too much pride or satisfaction

--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 156 (2d Coll. Ed. 1978).

blowhard -

a loudly boastful person

--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 154 (2d Coll. Ed. 1978).

Any "theory" which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC [Cracking the Code] is simply wrong, and doesn't merit a single line of text in its defense or a moment's attention from anyone.

- Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, on his website losthorizons.com, in assessing the merit of his own book "Cracking the Code," and in announcing his revised banning policy against people who disagree with his book.

[Famspear]

Actually, I should have reprinted the next line in Blowhard Hendrickson's material as well. These two sentences read well together:

Any "theory" which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC is simply wrong, and doesn't merit a single line of text in its defense or a moment's attention from anyone. Every line of text, and moment's attention, such "theories" manage to get is stolen from the forward momentum toward the restoration of the rule of law in America.

http://www.losthorizons.com/ForumRules.htm

Blowhard Hendrickson, the savior and restorer of the rule of law in America! Blowhard Hendrickson, moving us all forward to a better life! Stop reading anything else, and focus your eyes and your mind on THE SAVIOR! BLOWHARD HENDRICKSON!

Can you say "narcissistic personality disorder"??

[Famspear]

The Boiling of Blowhard Hendrickson's Brain

Again, when Blowhard Hendrickson writes:

Any "theory" which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC is simply wrong, and doesn't merit a single line of text in its defense or a moment's attention from anyone. Every line of text, and moment's attention, such "theories" manage to get is stolen from the forward momentum toward the restoration of the rule of law in America.

What might be happening in a corner of Blowhard Hendrickson's brain is the following kind of thought process: "It's YOUR fault, all you LITTLE people who post your stupid little "side theories" here on my website - it's YOUR fault that I lost! If only you had paid ME more homage, instead of going on and on about your own ideas about THIS variation and THAT permutation of something ELSE you read someWHERE else! Now, get back with the program and concentrate on MY book, MY skills, MY attributes, MY greatness! -- Because it's your shortcoming, not my own, that caused my defeat!"

[Cpt Banjo]

Famspear, you seem to be assuming that Pete sincerely believes in the crap he peddles. Isn't it equally likely (if not more so) that he's simply a con artist who knows better but who's been able to fleece a lot of ignorant TP's?

Which is not to say, btw, that he isn't a narcissist...