Free Enterprise Society Fresno Ca.

[michaelangeloart]

This organisation promotes tax protesting based on the research that proved the 16th Amendment was never ratified. They charge now for their seminars, a little under $2000.00.

When they had free seminars they funnelled people to their associates to create trusts to protect their money.

I and many other families were duped into trusting their claims of victories in tax court, only to find that they only defend their inner circle and once you put your money in their trusts, they keep it and use it to finance their relatives who are brokers for the stock and real estate market.

The money in your trust gets eaten up by commissions to their brokers and if you go see them in person, they claim they never saw you before and treat you like a criminal.

Pass the word, one of their shells is Global Business Services, now run by a former Bear-Stearns broker.

Shawn O'Conner and his pack are vultures picking on the bones of citizens who have not managed their taxes well and are desperate for a solution. Better to burn your money and cut your credit cards, burn down your house and sell you kids to Nigerian human traffickers.

Pass this on.

[wserra]

We have discussed these guys here before. About a year ago, DOJ obtained an order putting them out of business.

If they are still operating, anyone with personal knowledge should "pass the word" to Robert Metcalfe (202-307-6525) or Evan Davis (202-514-0079) of DOJ/Tax Division.

[Weston White]

Heh, I called them up over a year ago to see if they could assist me in understanding some matters more clearly... long story short, that man knew squat about the IRC, had no clue about what I was asking or saying. That was the last time I paid them any mind of mine.

[Gregg]

In all fairness Weston, I was at one time a CPA and I don't know squat about some of the things you've said about taxes. Not knowing the current gibberish is not a hinderence to knowing about the IRC

[Weston White]

Sorry, I do not speak in "gibberish", I speak in plain English. So I am quite sure I know not what you mean. I do not make up words, or fix untruths or lies, I merely study the law and how it applies.

Though you would think a college graduate that is specializing would realize and even more fully comprehend how the process of creating laws and that words of art have been in use since as far back as Rome. They even have legal dictionaries and annotations to aid in fully understanding such laws. To say that it is fully understandable that a CPA or tax attorney would be completely justified in thinking that manuals and publications are the only law that they need to keep purvey on, or that because I can cite and quote statutes and regulations that are being enforced against me, equates to speaking gibberish, is just ludicrous.

I have gone to great lengths to evolve my comprehension of how the law words and how it is to be applied. I have yet much to learn I realize that, though I also realize that I have learned a lot. I have reevaluated my prior beliefs and understanding many times during these last two years. You can't justifiably say that means squat and I am outright wrong... just because I have taught myself. It just so happens I am good at teaching myself. Attending and graduating from college does not impose or bestow some magical gift unto you that makes you any better, smarter, or more capable than me. In fact it would hold that most likely the opposite would be true, for at least there is a likely chance that I still retain my full creativity and potential; while you most likely have had that stripped from you in your quest for that immaculate prize of a paper called a diploma and the rewards manifested thereafter. It would seem likely that somewhere in such a pursuit, you conformed yourself to fit into an elaborately designed agenda, leaving only enough room for obtaining its ends.

[The Operative]

Attending and graduating from college does not impose or bestow some magical gift unto you that makes you any better, smarter, or more capable than me.

Agreed.

In fact it would hold that most likely the opposite would be true, for at least there is a likely chance that I still retain my full creativity and potential; while you most likely have had that stripped from you in your quest for that immaculate prize of a paper called a diploma and the rewards manifested thereafter. It would seem likely that somewhere in such a pursuit, you conformed yourself to fit into an elaborately designed agenda, leaving only enough room for obtaining its ends.

Now, you are off into the weeds. In some instances and some Bachelor's degrees, there is some amount of instruction that guides the student to be successful in his or her career. Depending upon the student, it may affect his or her creativity because he or she learns what someone else has already tried and failed. In large part, it depends upon the professors and the student. A good professor does not simply have the student regurgitate facts. A good professor engages the student in creative problem solving.

Proceeding beyond a Bachelor's degree actually helps to improve creativity and the ability to think for one self. A Master's thesis and a doctoral dissertation are typically in depth research papers that add to the overall body of knowledge in the student's field of study. The student describes a problem to be researched, forms a hypothesis or hypotheses, and through research gathers data that either supports or does not support the null. Once the data have been gathered and analyzed, the research report is finalized. The final research report is defended in front of a committee. Post-doc and other research papers are usually peer-reviewed. It doesn't matter if the paper agrees or disagrees with accepted knowledge as long as the results are adequately supported. Creativity and thinking for yourself are a significant part of graduate studies.

BTW, what Pete Hendrickson and what many other tax denier gurus have done is not research.

[LPC]

I have gone to great lengths to evolve my comprehension of how the law words and how it is to be applied. I have yet much to learn I realize that, though I also realize that I have learned a lot. I have reevaluated my prior beliefs and understanding many times during these last two years. You can't justifiably say that means squat and I am outright wrong... just because I have taught myself. It just so happens I am good at teaching myself. Attending and graduating from college does not impose or bestow some magical gift unto you that makes you any better, smarter, or more capable than me. In fact it would hold that most likely the opposite would be true, for at least there is a likely chance that I still retain my full creativity and potential; while you most likely have had that stripped from you in your quest for that immaculate prize of a paper called a diploma and the rewards manifested thereafter. It would seem likely that somewhere in such a pursuit, you conformed yourself to fit into an elaborately designed agenda, leaving only enough room for obtaining its ends.

Nice rant.

Someone once told me that, if you read about a subject for 15 minutes each day, you can be one of the top experts in the United States within one year.

And I believe that's true.

But... You have to be intelligent and discriminating enough to be able to understand and apply what you read.

One of the really nice things about the Internet is that no one knows you're a dog. Most people don't give their real names, and don't provide pictures or resumes, so you can't judge people by the way they look, or their ethnic background, or even where they went to school. All you've got it what they write.

And so I read what people write, and I test what they write against what I can verify and what makes sense, and I learn who can be trusted and who can't.

And that's why you're still failing. It's not because you don't have the right degree, or didn't go to the right school, but because I read what you write, and I test it, and it fails my tests.

This is what is known as "critical thinking," and it is what is completely lacking at "Lost Horizons" and other tax denier pits. A total lack of testing to try to determine what is true, what is real, what works, and what doesn't work.

[Weston White]

BTW, what Pete Hendrickson and what many other tax denier gurus have done is not research.

Actually Hendrickson is one of the only few that had actually performed core research. Most all others simply quote the work of others and look to the present day printing of the Code.

And that's why you're still failing. It's not because you don't have the right degree, or didn't go to the right school, but because I read what you write, and I test it, and it fails my tests.

No, you are outright biased. You have already more than proven that, beyond any need for further discussion in fact. And it is namely for this reason that your posts are of little consequence to me. Though if you need something to "test", you need only look at your own tax-protester FAQ.

[Weston White]

Proceeding beyond a Bachelor's degree actually helps to improve creativity and the ability to think for one self. A Master's thesis and a doctoral dissertation are typically in depth research papers that add to the overall body of knowledge in the student's field of study. The student describes a problem to be researched, forms a hypothesis or hypotheses, and through research gathers data that either supports or does not support the null. Once the data have been gathered and analyzed, the research report is finalized. The final research report is defended in front of a committee. Post-doc and other research papers are usually peer-reviewed. It doesn't matter if the paper agrees or disagrees with accepted knowledge as long as the results are adequately supported. Creativity and thinking for yourself are a significant part of graduate studies.

Good point about the advanced degrees, though for most this is a livelong quest, and a rarity at best. For most one or a few Bachelor degrees is their ending achievement.

[The Operative]

BTW, what Pete Hendrickson and what many other tax denier gurus have done is not research.

Actually Hendrickson is one of the only few that had actually performed core research. Most all others simply quote the work of others and look to the present day printing of the Code.

No, you do not understand true research. Research has been so loosely used in everyday speech, that few people have any idea of its true meaning. Research is NOT mere information gathering. Research is NOT mere transportation of facts from one place to another. Research is NOT rummaging for information. Research is NOT a catchword used to get attention. Research is NOT first reaching a conclusion and then twisting facts and data to 'support' said conclusion.

There are some basic characteristics common in true research. Research begins with a question or a problem. Research requires a clear articulation of a goal. Research requires a specific plan for proceeding. Research usually divides the principal problem into more manageable subproblems. Research is guided by the specific research problem, question or hypothesis. Research defines any critical assumptions that are tacitly accepted. Research requires the collection and interpretation of data in an attempt to resolve the problem that initiated the research. Research is cyclical.

A true researcher finds or formulates a problem that will add to the body of knowledge in a subject. A research will form a hypothesis or hypotheses to state what he or she believes will occur. However, a true hypothesis, in most instances, can never really be proven beyond all doubt. Therefore, the researcher will set out to disprove or discredit an opposite hypothesis, aka a null hypothesis. A researcher also rarely states research conclusions in absolutes. A typical conclusion will discuss how the data supports or does not support the null hypothesis and by default, the opposite for the research hypothesis.

I could continue, but a full discussion on what research is and how it is performed would need several hundred paragraphs. What Pete Hendrickson has done is NOT research, not even close.

[LPC]

Though if you need something to "test", you need only look at your own tax-protester FAQ.

If you think that my FAQ is flawed, it should be simple for you to point to an example.

I've written about 138,000 words, so it should be easy to find a mistake.

Go ahead, make my day.

[Weston White]

BTW, what Pete Hendrickson and what many other tax denier gurus have done is not research.

Actually Hendrickson is one of the only few that had actually performed core research. Most all others simply quote the work of others and look to the present day printing of the Code.

No, you do not understand true research. Research has been so loosely used in everyday speech, that few people have any idea of its true meaning. Research is NOT mere information gathering. Research is NOT mere transportation of facts from one place to another. Research is NOT rummaging for information. Research is NOT a catchword used to get attention. Research is NOT first reaching a conclusion and then twisting facts and data to 'support' said conclusion.

There are some basic characteristics common in true research. Research begins with a question or a problem. Research requires a clear articulation of a goal. Research requires a specific plan for proceeding. Research usually divides the principal problem into more manageable subproblems. Research is guided by the specific research problem, question or hypothesis. Research defines any critical assumptions that are tacitly accepted. Research requires the collection and interpretation of data in an attempt to resolve the problem that initiated the research. Research is cyclical.

A true researcher finds or formulates a problem that will add to the body of knowledge in a subject. A research will form a hypothesis or hypotheses to state what he or she believes will occur. However, a true hypothesis, in most instances, can never really be proven beyond all doubt. Therefore, the researcher will set out to disprove or discredit an opposite hypothesis, aka a null hypothesis. A researcher also rarely states research conclusions in absolutes. A typical conclusion will discuss how the data supports or does not support the null hypothesis and by default, the opposite for the research hypothesis.

I could continue, but a full discussion on what research is and how it is performed would need several hundred paragraphs. What Pete Hendrickson has done is NOT research, not even close.

How would you know that for sure though? I mean all we get to see is the end result, which is manifest within 10 Editions of CtC.

[Weston White]

Though if you need something to "test", you need only look at your own tax-protester FAQ.

If you think that my FAQ is flawed, it should be simple for you to point to an example.

I've written about 138,000 words, so it should be easy to find a mistake.

Go ahead, make my day.

It is not flawed, it is just misrepresents the truth, by circumventing the truth. I have not read the entire thing, though have searched through it and can see what you are attempting to accomplish with it. In other words is there even a single point that does not support your views? I have seen none, they are all pros to fit your perception, not a con to be found. I could have missed a few morsels here and there though, that FAQ is total overkill.

[The Operative]

How would you know that for sure though? I mean all we get to see is the end result, which is manifest within 10 Editions of CtC.

A true researcher has their research peer-reviewed. As I already stated, a true researcher typically does not state conclusions in absolutes. A document discussing research, whether it is a dissertation, thesis, academic journal article, or a book on the research project, will contain certain elements. Some very important elements are a problem statement and a hypothesis. While they are not typically labeled as such, these are readily apparent in most research reports. Also, a researcher does not ignore data contrary to his or her beliefs or attempt to twist that data to fit his or her preconceived notions.

[Famspear]

Weston, what Hendrickson has done is not proper legal research. Proper legal research involves a set pattern, and following a set of complex rules. Hendrickson has not followed those rules -- as evidenced by the many fundamental errors he has made (as previously discussed here in Quatloos). Neither Hendrickson nor anyone else can perform proper legal research when he is unaware of the rules of legal research. That Hendrickson is unaware of the bulk of the rules he needs to know is clear.

Another big problem with Hendrickson's work is that he simply does not know the law itself -- both the procedural law and the substantive law. This is repetition of what I have already written, but Hendrickson's problem is evidenced by his tendency to forget that words in the law sometimes do have specialized meanings.

This is ironic, since it is Hendrickson himself who claims (falsely) that terms like "employer," "employee," "wage", and "income" have specialized meanings in the Internal Revenue Code -- meanings that he has supposedly "discerned" from his "research." He is wrong. These terms as used in the Internal Revenue Code do not have the specialized meanings he tells his followers they have. These terms have the meanings that courts have ruled the words have.

Yet, when it comes to legal terms that do have specialized meanings, he has demonstrated sloppiness. I have already provided documented examples -- for example, his use of the term "deficiency" in connection with the notice of deficiency that is issued by the IRS prior to the assessment of a "deficiency" in an income tax. Hendrickson has carelessly used the term "deficiency" to mean, roughly, the unpaid tax. In some Code contexts, the term does mean that -- but not in this context.

The other example I have cited over and over is Hendrickson's misuse of the term "subject matter jurisdiction." He apparently still does not understand what the term means. This error has apparently bubbled over into problems for his followers -- as in a recent case where one of his followers lost a case (of course), then filed an appeal, and then --stupidly -- argued before the appeals court that the appeals court had no jurisdiction to hear the very case he was asking the court to hear. What a Corn Flake! If the court of appeals were to agree with this Corn Flake, then his case would be thrown out (i.e., Hendrickson's Corn Flake would lose the case). Do not appeal a case and then argue that the appeals court cannot hear your case. I mean, can you say "Duh"?

I do not need to see all the steps and paperwork that Hendrickson took or prepared in leading up to the final product to know that he does not know how to properly research legal materials. I can see that clearly from looking only at his final product.

[Famspear]

Though if you need something to "test", you need only look at your own tax-protester FAQ.

If you think that my FAQ is flawed, it should be simple for you to point to an example.

I've written about 138,000 words, so it should be easy to find a mistake.

Go ahead, make my day.

It is not flawed, it is just misrepresents the truth, by circumventing the truth.

Whoa, you just pegged the needle on my BS detector, Weston.

No, Dan's FAQ does not "circumvent" the "truth." He lists the tax protester arguments in detail and he also lists in detail what the courts have actually ruled. To the extent that there are two "sides," Dan's FAQ presents both sides.

There really aren't two "sides" to this issue, though Weston. There is no "truth" (in the sense that you mean it) that could be "circumvented." There is simply no truth in tax protester (tax denier) arguments. Those arguments are, by definition, both legally meritless and (worse) legally frivolous. You are quite wrong.

[Weston White]

Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#property

Here the ominous fact is IRC never taxes compensation for labor, it taxes only compensation for services. There obviously is a very good reason for this and it has to do with maintaining the constitutionality of the Code.

Also it is worthy to note it is not the income from labor being taxed, it is the income deriving from labor that is being taxed.

Nowhere does he make any mention of or quote Dr. Adam Smith. Obfuscation is in full effect my friends.

There really aren't two "sides" to this issue, though Weston. There is no "truth" (in the sense that you mean it) that could be "circumvented." There is simply no truth in tax protester (tax denier) arguments. Those arguments are, by definition, both legally meritless and (worse) legally frivolous. You are quite wrong.

So now after specifically pointing out what "real research" is and how it is accomplished, we are making a convenient exception, isn't that right?

[Gregg]

Sorry, I do not speak in "gibberish", I speak in plain English. So I am quite sure I know not what you mean. I do not make up words, or fix untruths or lies, I merely study the law and how it applies.

Though you would think a college graduate that is specializing would realize and even more fully comprehend how the process of creating laws and that words of art have been in use since as far back as Rome. They even have legal dictionaries and annotations to aid in fully understanding such laws. To say that it is fully understandable that a CPA or tax attorney would be completely justified in thinking that manuals and publications are the only law that they need to keep purvey on, or that because I can cite and quote statutes and regulations that are being enforced against me, equates to speaking gibberish, is just ludicrous.

I have gone to great lengths to evolve my comprehension of how the law words and how it is to be applied. I have yet much to learn I realize that, though I also realize that I have learned a lot. I have reevaluated my prior beliefs and understanding many times during these last two years. You can't justifiably say that means squat and I am outright wrong... just because I have taught myself. It just so happens I am good at teaching myself. Attending and graduating from college does not impose or bestow some magical gift unto you that makes you any better, smarter, or more capable than me. In fact it would hold that most likely the opposite would be true, for at least there is a likely chance that I still retain my full creativity and potential; while you most likely have had that stripped from you in your quest for that immaculate prize of a paper called a diploma and the rewards manifested thereafter. It would seem likely that somewhere in such a pursuit, you conformed yourself to fit into an elaborately designed agenda, leaving only enough room for obtaining its ends.

I'm not saying you don't ..wait, what am I trying to say, your writing sometimes looks like its a random word generator or maybe something that makes sense but fed to babelfish to translate to russian, from russian to japanese then back to english.
As regards my education, I studied accounting with no agenda, I was never that interested in practicing accounting, I wanted to run a business and knowing accounting is a good skill to have ( cannot be bamboozled by accountants, while I do not claim to have the daily user expertise of an accountant in practice, I can follow along and not get lost in it. If I have a question, I ask, often I ask two different people to see if I get the same answer...the point is, I know enough to know when I don't know which is I think something you have problems with. I don't consider myself in any way better or even smarter than you or anyone else because I have the diplomas, but I do consider myself more knowledgeable than most people in my chosen field than people who didn't do the time in a classroom. Nothing wrong with being self taught, but you are open to getting a bad idea embedded when your learning method doesn't involve feedback from someone you accept as being better informed than you. You read something, you think you understand it, and it takes a long time for you to learn otherwise if you accept your incorrect conclusion and years later something bad happens. This is the problem I have tax defiers, they get a plain old wrong thing in their mind and go way to far down the rabbit hole based on that idea. Someone at LH read something about an assessment must be signed by X level official, and then read somewhere else that the IRS must provide the Taxpayer with X information regarding that assessment, and putting 2 & 2 together they get 48, "the IRS must provide me with a copy of the signed assessment with the ID number of the employee who signed it blah blah blah...the law says no such thing. It says the assessment must be signed, it says you have to provided information about the assessment, but that does not mean you have the right to a copy of the signature on a document. The CTC crowd makes dozens of false leaps of logic like that
precisely because they as a group are self taught. In fact, I'd go so far to say that a lot of them know the words of the tax code or parts of it better than a lot of tax proffesionals, but they don't understand it.

[Duke2Earl]

Tax deniers also seem to have a very distorted view of what a tax professional does for a living. At its essence what a tax lawyer or other trained professional does is try to predict the future. I agree that no one is infalliable at predicting the future but a tax professional uses a specifically defined process of predicting the future based almost entirely on what has happened in the past. Tax professionals know a few things and the most important one is that the government sure thinks they can tax incomes (including wages) of individuals. And they also know that at the bottom the government will use the courts to enforce their understanding of the tax law. So all a tax professional is actually doing here is making a prediction as to how a court will react to various arguments that can be made as to why somebody doesn't owe taxes.

Sometimes that process of prediction is difficult, like if the situation is a case of first impression, that is, no court has previously ruled on the specific question. But sometimes it's easy, like when the courts have ruled many times on that specific question presented.

In the case of tax deniers the courts have ruled over and over and over again how that tune plays out. At an over 99% percent level of certainty, if one goes to court and makes tax denier arguments they are going to end up in a world of hurt. Tax deniers can argue all they want, cite anything they want, parse phrases any way they want, play administrative games till they are blue in the face and the result will be the same.... world of hurt. Now if you want to end up in this world of hurt... we can't stop you. But it pisses us off when you cause that hurt to rain down on lots of totally innocent family members, and most especially when some "person" exploits people to cause them to be hurt and charges them money for the experience. This is why many of us fight people like Hendrickson. It is a free country, you can do and think what you choose. But when Hendrickson is selling his book he doesn't tell the truth, that is, if you follow his advice you will almost certainly end up in a world of hurt.

[LPC]

If you think that my FAQ is flawed, it should be simple for you to point to an example.

I've written about 138,000 words, so it should be easy to find a mistake.

Go ahead, make my day.

It is not flawed, it is just misrepresents the truth, by circumventing the truth. I have not read the entire thing, though have searched through it and can see what you are attempting to accomplish with it. In other words is there even a single point that does not support your views? I have seen none, they are all pros to fit your perception, not a con to be found. I could have missed a few morsels here and there though, that FAQ is total overkill.

This is typical tax denier dishonesty.

I presented a simple challenge, which is to identify any example of any flaw or mistake in my Tax Protester FAQ, and you respond with semantic evasions, vague unsupported allegations, and a new and irrelevant criticism (that the FAQ is "total overkill").

Let me restate my challenge so that you can't pretend not to understand:

If you can find a single statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that is a "con" to anything I have written, cite it.

I will either tell you why you're wrong or will incorporate it into the FAQ (or both).

And give it your best shot. I only need (or want) one citation, so make it your best.