When Will Patrick Mooney Announce His Loss At LostHeads?

[LPC]

So far, "never" is looking like the right bet.

[Famspear]

Losthorizons user "GK" has finally spilled the beans:

It appears that Patrick Mooney lost his Tax Court case. I read the following from February 7th:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

I am not going to make any assumptions on what this ultimately means, other than it is one more example of a loss in Tax Court. I do note, however, that Mooney brought up more than a few arguments deemed frivolous, and that they sanctioned him double this time.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 45f1#26903

User Hang'Em High responds:

The tax court website is apparently down until tuesday morning. Are you sure this was Patrick Mooney's most recent case from last year? I think he had been to tax court before, but you did say that they sanctioned him double this time, so I guess it is.

[Thule]

How long before GK is banned for spreading heresy?

[.]

Gosh, that must be a little hard to take. The poor bastards have been banking on Mooney's beating the IRS to a bloody legal pulp.

What happened to the Tax Court judge and the IRS being so frightened by his legal acumen and insights that they were cowering and wouldn't respond to him or his case?

How can it be that CtC's biggest acolyte and sycophant has again been handed a stunning loss and whacked again for thousands of dollars in sanctions?

How can it be that their incarcerated leader is now reduced to begging for nickels and dimes?

It's enough to make even a total dolt reconsider the "wisdom" of CtC. Darlene may have a revolution on her hands, assuming that a dozen or so people can revolt. If she still has a couple of firing synapses, she might even start it.

[Gregg]

I am not "stuck" in Tax Court. I walked into that alligator pit 5 months ago, tied that son-of-a-bitch up and slit its f****** throat. Everyone's still gawking at the blood gushing out of that bastard. And for good measure, I torched a few STRAW MEN on my way out who tried to redeem my Christian name from the profane practices of the Kol Nidre Code Creators. Overall, it was a good day for me.

Sorry, that just deserves to be bumped. You have no idea how tempted I am to buy billboard space where he lives to remind him how stupid he is every day....

[Famspear]

Now, GK responds to "Hang'Em High:"

HEH - yes, this is for the case that had been waiting for a decision for like 9 months.

Actually, the wait was over 10 months.

It was worth the wait.

[ashlynne39]

I am not "stuck" in Tax Court. I walked into that alligator pit 5 months ago, tied that son-of-a-bitch up and slit its f****** throat. Everyone's still gawking at the blood gushing out of that bastard. And for good measure, I torched a few STRAW MEN on my way out who tried to redeem my Christian name from the profane practices of the Kol Nidre Code Creators. Overall, it was a good day for me.

Sorry, that just deserves to be bumped. You have no idea how tempted I am to buy billboard space where he lives to remind him how stupid he is every day....

How awesome would that be. In fact, maybe you could contract with his neighbor for a little patch of grass to put a sign up facing his front door so every time he comes out he sees it.

[Cathulhu]

Ash, you are a sick woman and I like you.

[Famspear]

The U.S. Tax Court web site is down for maintenance until Tuesday morning, but losthorizons user "justinprime" can't wait to find out what happened to Patrick Michael Mooney. He responds to "GK":

GK, what did you learn from it [the text of the Court's February 7th decision]? What exactly does it say? (I can't wait until Tuesday)

[ashlynne39]

Ash, you are a sick woman and I like you.

I'm glad to please and pass on just a bit of my very sick sense of humor

[LPC]

GK, what did you learn from it [the text of the Court's February 7th decision]? What exactly does it say? (I can't wait until Tuesday)

And GK actually produces a pretty good summary:

Frivolous, because we said so, we warned you not to come here again saying that stuff, here is a double fine.

Yep, that about sums it up.

[Harvester]

Nice to see we CtC'ers have so many fans here. You Quatlosers are like kids n the 'hood stumbling upon a gangmember getting beat up. As the gangbangers run off you laugh at the victim "shouldda just paid your taxes and been done with it."

I should hope . . . more of you besides Famspire have finished their apology to the tax honesty community.

Freedom is available to all former taxpayer victims. The income tax is an excise and so far, you & the DOJesters have failed to show me the law, contract, or operation of law, whereby I have taxable income (OK, beside interest from a national bank).

[Famspear]

......I should hope . . . more of you besides Famspire have finished their apology to the tax honesty community.....

I'm not sure what you mean by implying that I have "apologized" to the "tax honesty community," but I'm sure your belief about that is on a level with every other delusional belief you have.

[Pottapaug1938]

Nice to see we CtC'ers have so many fans here. You Quatlosers are like kids n the 'hood stumbling upon a gangmember getting beat up. As the gangbangers run off you laugh at the victim "shouldda just paid your taxes and been done with it."

I should hope . . . more of you besides Famspire have finished their apology to the tax honesty community.

Freedom is available to all former taxpayer victims. The income tax is an excise and so far, you & the DOJesters have failed to show me the law, contract, or operation of law, whereby I have taxable income (OK, beside interest from a national bank).

Harvey -- we have showed you the law, over and over again. You're just too obtuse to understand that. You're hung up on your word games and your magic phrases; and you've essentially boarded the battleship Tax Denier just after it took several torpedoes in both sides, is dead in the water, and is slowly settling into the ocean.

[Gregg]

I have left out PM's name so his work would not be further slandered by the internet search engines associating his name to the propaganda-fest the IRSS will hope this creates.

Which virtually assures anyone looking will get directed here instead! Thank you!

[The Operative]

I am also hoping we can see the pleadings in this case. I just can't believe they can get away without addressing the issues in the case and then lay down heavy penalties "because we can". The ad hominem attacks are an outright travesty.

I believe this is the case where he also submitted his masterpiece REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE. http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/ ... ostRJN.pdf

To EndtheFed aka Moron:

The court did not avoid any issues and is not using ad hominem attacks.
The court did address Mooney's "masterpiece" when they said...

We do not address petitioner’s frivolous and groundless arguments with “somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

Translation for the crackheads:
Mooney's "masterpiece" is so ridiculously stupid that it doesn't need to be discussed. Any person in their right mind can see how wrong he is.

[Famspear]

Say, let's take a stroll down memory lane, and look at the fabulous petition filed by Patrick Michael Mooney in this case:

United States Tax Court
400 Second Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20217

Patrick Michael Mooney
Petitioner

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Respondent

Docket No. 8128-09

[file stamp of the Clerk of the Court, April 2, 2009, 9:07 a.m.]

PETITION

1) Petitioner is disputing a Notice of Deficiency.

2) The Notice of Deficiency is dated 12/31/2008 and was received by the Petitioner on 1/5/2009. the Notice originated from the Respondent's Ogden, Utah branch office (84201).

3) The Notice of Deficiency refers to the year 2005.

4) Petitioner chooses to have this case conducted under regular tax case procedures.

5) Reasons for disagreement with the Respondent's Notice of Deficiency

A) Petitioner did not engage in any taxable activity above the personal exemption amount for the year in question.

B) Petitioner filed a timely and lawful Claim for Refund, which the Respondent has not yet dutifully processed.

C) Respondent alleges, through the alleged assessment of penalties 6651(f) and 6651(a)(2), that Petitioner has willfully and/or fraudulently failed to file, and has been delinquent in failing to file. None of these allegations are true.

D) Petitioner is due the return of his property in the amount of $2,647.48, plus any penalties and interest that the law allows.

6) Statement of Facts:

A) Petitioner is not a taxpayer, as the law defines that term.

B) Petitioner did receive a payment from E*Trade Clearing, LLC in the amount of $97.00 for the year in question. It was not reported in Petitioner's claim for refund because that payment reflected the remaining balance from a closed account that had a net loss, not gain, of $1,903.00. Furthermore, even if the alleged income were indeed taxable, $97.00 falls well below the statutory regulations that require an individual to file a tax return.

C) Petitioner has legally rebutted any allegations that he received income or participated in any taxable activity in a timely and correct fashion. A timely and lawful 1040 was sent to the Respondent on 1/25/2006 and was received by the Respondent's Atlanta branch before the month completed.

D) The Respondent does not have anything other than hearsay allegations to prop up his frivolous claims and has been using that hearsay as a pretext to engage in color of law tactics designed to coerce the Petitioner into surrendering his claim to his lawful property.

E) Petitioner has not received, nor witnessed, a valid lawful certificate of assessment showing any liability for the year in question. There is no such assessment on the record.

F) The economic activities of the Petitioner for the period in question are outside of the bounds of the Respondent's jurisdiction.


ENCLOSURES
1) A copy of the Notice of Deficiency issued by the Respondent.

2) Statement of Petitioner's Social Security Number.

3) The Request for Place of Trial Form.

4) The filing fee in the amount of $60.00.

[signature: Patrick M. Mooney]
3/27/2009

[Petitioner's address and phone number redacted]

I especially got a chuckle over Mooney's bleating at item 6E -- that there was no record of assessment of the tax. The purpose of this kind of proceeding in Tax Court is to allow the taxpayer to contest the deficiency PRIOR to the IRS assessment. and without having to first pay the amount the IRS alleges is owed.

[Famspear]

Clueless Crackhead "ENDtheFED" has created a new thread at losthorizons to discuss Patrick Mooney's predicament. He/she writes:

I wanted to get a deeper understanding of just how such a blatant miscarriage of justice can take place in the Taxaroo Court.

The TC Memo can be read here

[link not reproduced]

I am also hoping we can see the pleadings in this case. I just can't believe they can get away without addressing the issues in the case and then lay down heavy penalties "because we can". The ad hominem attacks are an outright travesty.

I believe this is the case where he also submitted his masterpiece REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE.

I can only imagine what a letdown this has to be. To have these pukes [the Internal Revenue Service] nailed dead to rights and get a proceeding outcome as fraudulent as this is unbelievable.

I have left out PM's [Patrick Mooney's] name so his work would not be further slandered by the internet search engines associating his name to the propaganda-fest the IRSS will hope this creates.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2746

(bolding added).

User "TranscriptsDontLie" responds:

Thanks, EtF, for launching this discussion. I'm afraid, however, without PM's help, we can only speculate. What we would need to get from PM are .pdf'd copies of:
(a) his CDPH proceeding;
(b) his TC petition & any amendments;
(c) the DOJesters' reply briefs;
(d) his discovery request(s) & DOJesters' production(s), if any;
(e) TC's trial transcript;
(f) TC's docket.
If and when made available, we'd have to do a methodical "post mortem" on this case. Does PM even want "us" to drill down? I'm not sure ... Obviously, auntie iris [the IRS] needed an updated "don't-go-there" poster, and TC [the U.S. Tax Court] obliged her by delaying (for 9+ months!) its ludicrous ruling until the very start of this year's filing season. Needles [sic] to point out that auntie gains tremendous publicity via the LH forum -- lot'za bang for no bucks! On a constructive note: imho, if PM is willing to go along with the above list, we'd better go "off-forum" to collaborate.

(bolding added).

[.]

Petitioner did receive a payment from E*Trade Clearing, LLC in the amount of $97.00 for the year in question. It was not reported in Petitioner's claim for refund because that payment reflected the remaining balance from a closed account that had a net loss, not gain, of $1,903.00.

In other words, he opened a chickensh!t $2,000 brokerage account and then proceeded to lose 95% of it, over an unknown period of time ending in '05.

His trading/investment advice is almost as worthless as his 100% guaranteed-loser tax advice, not an easy thing to do.

[LPC]

Thanks, EtF, for launching this discussion. I'm afraid, however, without PM's help, we can only speculate. What we would need to get from PM are .pdf'd copies of:
(a) his CDPH proceeding;
(b) his TC petition & any amendments;
(c) the DOJesters' reply briefs;
(d) his discovery request(s) & DOJesters' production(s), if any;
(e) TC's trial transcript;
(f) TC's docket.
If and when made available, we'd have to do a methodical "post mortem" on this case.

Jeez. I'll try to make it simple for you.

Patrick Mooney jumped off the edge of the cliff, flapping his arms as hard as he could, yelling "there is no gravity!" and "I can fly."

He was wrong, which is why you're finding all that splatter at the bottom of the cliff.

Go "post mortem" the splatter all you want.