Hendrickson follower Mooney on the need for lawyers

[Gregg]

... it has now been over 6 months since my second tax court trial and the IRS remains in stunned silence on the matter.

If IRS attorneys laugh at Mooney and he doesn't hear them, is his legal theory still unsound?

Maybe they've finished laughing ans started working on the criminal case.

[Judge Roy Bean]

It's becoming more certain that Mooney and the tax honesty adherents will have the last laugh.

Don't look now but silver is @ $21.46

Fish don't need bicycles, either.

[Gregg]

It's becoming more certain that Mooney and the tax honesty adherents will have the last laugh.

Don't look now but silver is @ $21.46

Lorne is a liar.

As has been pointed out many times, his first few posts here claimed he was a tax preparer who had a client that he wanted to talk out of "this crazy theory" and wanted to know what to say to an idiot. Within just a few weeks, he was full bore batshit crazy lemming of Federal Inmate Number 15406-039.

To believe he is not only a liar, but a pretty pathetic one, you have to accept that after whatever career training he had to to become a tax professional and whatever sacrafices he made to become a CPA or whatever he was, he gave up. He implied that this was just one of his many clients, so to believe him you have to believe he just tossed all his other normal and profitable cients to the 4 winds.
To believe Lorne, you have to believe that while he no longer pays income tax, he also no longer has an income, having given up his livelyhood for Federal Inmate Number 15406-039, and is now preparing his business plan to sell produce at roadside. Finally, you have to believe that Lorne was just a few months ago at least able to appear rational to successful people who needed tax advce, book kleeping, accounting. Rational enough for them to entrust him with their successful businesses.

So, the only logical conclusion is Lorne is a liar. A pretty pathetic liar at that.

(And I happen to think he's just another voice in Harvester's head, cause he's so pathetic he'd invent someone as pathetic as Lorne to be his lone supporter. But that's just my opinion)

[Nikki]

It's becoming more certain that Mooney and the tax honesty adherents will have the last laugh.

Don't look now but silver is @ $21.46

Lorne: Perhaps, some day, you will learn to be able to differentiate between a last laugh and an insane cackle.

On second thought, no, you won't.

[lorne]

Fish don't need bicycles, either.

nor does America need the Federal Reserve, either.

[Famspear]

Here's more pontification from Patrick Michael Mooney, responding to another poster at losthorizons:

.......The frivolous issue can be easily defeated by your next option, going to Tax Court. In March of this year, I challenged them [the Internal Revenue Service] on this issue. For the first time in 7 years of this fight, someone in the Federal Government (the judge) actually stated that the BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE IRS TO PROVE THE FRIVOLOUS CHARGE.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 417d#25926

Well section 6703(a) clearly states that the burden of proof is on the government on the section 6702 "frivolous" issue. Has the government ever argued otherwise, Mr. Mooney?

Mooney continues:

Guess what?....they didn't even try to prove it at the trial. Instead, they tried to trip me up on procedure, hoping the case would be dismissed (like my first attempt in 2008). Because they failed to prove the frivolous charge, my original return is back on top as THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT in the entire affair (it was never lodged off that perch to begin with, but it was fun to see them choke on it.)

The judge will decide whether the government met its burden of proof on the "frivolous" issue, Mr. Mooney. And I strongly suspect that the government was able to get you to admit in some way that you used the methods described in the Cracking the Code scam. That's all it would take for the government to have met its burden of proof, Patrick. In a such a case, the judge will have no problem finding or concluding that your conduct was based on a frivolous position under section 6702.

In a sense, Patrick, your tax return is indeed one of the "controlling documents," but that doesn't mean what I suspect you think it means, and it's not going to "result" in a "result" you're gonna like.

This is why they have not returned a verdict after 6 months (when the IRS lawyers thought the case would be thrown out like the last time).

As many who follow Tax Court cases have found, the Tax Court often takes a loooonnnnnggg time to do lots of things. Patrick, I wouldn't read too much into the timing of court actions.

If you refer to my Request for Judicial Notice, which Pete posted in his newsletter (and maybe on this forum, too), you will have all the info you need to defend your truth. Feel free to adapt it to suit your needs.

Let me guess, Patrick: You probably filed a request for judicial notice of something that probably was not appropriate for judicial notice.

The more people that would be willing to follow the path I have set, the sooner this whole affair will end (for the good) for us all.

Remember, the LAW [section 6702] regarding frivolous filings explicitly states that the offense MUST BE FOUND ON THE ORIGINAL RETURN.

Well, no. Patrick, if you mean that the law states that the frivolous position must be stated in the tax return itself, you're wrong. We've been through this before.

If a person files what purports to be a federal income tax return that contains information that, on its face, indicates that the taxpayer's self-assessment of the tax is substantially incorrect AND that conduct -- the act of filing the return -- is BASED on a position which the IRS has identified as "frivolous" under subsection (c) of section 6702, then that person is generally liable for the penalty. If you file a tax return that shows your gross compensation related to a given Form W-2 report to be zero even though the W-2 shows a positive amount, then that return contains information that ON ITS FACE probably indicates that your self-assessment of tax on that return is "substantially incorrect" -- regardless of whether you state the underlying frivolous position in the return. Nowhere does the statute say that you must STATE THE FRIVOLOUS POSITION ITSELF IN THE RETURN. The statute says only that YOUR CONDUCT must be BASED on the frivolous position. Learn how to read, Patrick.

The law was written to stop people from turning their information returns into political staements [sic], preventing the IRS from doing its lawful duties. Any person who files a return using the knowledge and information found in CTC [Cracking the Code, the Pete Hendrickson tax scam book] does not fit this criteria.

Any person who files a return using the Cracking the Code scam is arguably guilty of a felony. Any person who files a return using the "CtC" scam does indeed fit the criteria of having filed a return based on a legally frivolous position for purposes of section 6702.

The Congress did enact Internal Revenue Code section 6702 "in an effort to deter tax protesters from filing frivolous returns." The statute was enacted as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, sec. 326(a) (Sept. 3, 1982), effective for documents filed after September 3, 1982. See Kahn v. United States, 753 F.2d 1208, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9152 (3d Cir. 1985). In footnote 3 of the Kahn decision, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Third Circuit states: "The Senate Finance Committee, in articulating the reasons for change, expressed its concern 'with the rapid growth in deliberate definance [sic; probably should read "defiance"] of the tax laws by tax protesters.' S. Rep. No. 494....." Id.

Good luck in your defense. Once you face these clowns in open court, you will see them for the scared rabbits they really are. I'm sure the lawyer that went up against me got an earful from his superiors, because they certainly did not win the day.

I'm sure, Patrick, that you are delusional.

Incidentally, I knew I had them for good when I "lost" the first trial in 2008. Were it not for my initial inexperience and ignorance regarding the nature of the proceedings, I would be 0-0-2 right now, instead of 0-1-1. (This is not to say I wasn't well-prepared in my knowledge of the law..just how the TC [Tax Court] works). I count my "draws" as victories, though, because, according to the law, the courts are suposed [sic] to rule in favor of the "taxpayer" when the matter is in question.

Well, no. There is no rule that says that the Court is supposed to rule in favor of the taxpayer when "the matter" is "in question."

After over six months of failing to return a verdict, I think it is safe to say that the opponent has left the field (and even abandoned the arena).

Sorry, but in your case, the verdict is rendered by the Tax Court judge, who is both the trier of law and the trier of fact. And your opponent is not the judge. Your opponent in Tax Court is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The judge is the one who decides either in your favor or in your opponent's favor. And I hate to be the one to break the news, but neither the Commissioner nor the judge has "left the field."

While I did not get my money back, or my truth officially acknowledged by the Court, I have gathered the most powerful evidence yet of government bad faith and malfeasance.

Oh, wow, gee golly willikers.

My next step as warrior is to take this information to the general public, in hopes of bolstering the courage of all Americans and also helping to gain the release of Peter from his illegal federal incarceration.

Oh, wow, gee golly willikers.

I can't do that by myself. I was hoping people would be emboldened by Pete's imprisonment to rise up and take action, but I haven't seen enough of that lately.

Oh, wow, gee golly willikers.

I think we're still being too squeamish as Wariors [sic]. Liberty is not for the faint of heart, but for the bold. Believe me, you really have nothing to be afraid of with these goons.......

(bolding and italics in original)

I assume that by "these goons" you mean the federal government personnel who enforce the tax laws -- the folks at the IRS and the Department of Justice. In other words, the folks who handed your hero (jailbird, two-time loser Pete Hendrickson) his a*s on a plate.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Fish don't need bicycles, either.

nor does America need the Federal Reserve, either.

I was going to ask "Let me guess, you have an idea to replace it with . . . ?" but I realize any answer from lorne would be yet another demonstration of his or her ignorance of real-world economics and money theory. So, never mind.

[Nikki]

Mooney is still somewhat confused as to terminology.

Tax Court judges NEVER issue or render a "verdict."

They issue an opinion.

Unlike the rest of us, however, their opinions have the force of law.

[Famspear]

Losthorizoner "SkankBeat" responds to Patrick Mooney's post with this classic:

Patrick, why don't you research common law and learn how to submit your own judgment and court order into the court record against the IRS? If you get obstruction from the court clerk then file "on demand". If you get obstruction from the judge then issue writ of error reversing his acts and then hold him for contempt of court.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9e39#25927

(bolding added).



You just can't make this stuff up.

Unless, of course, you're "SkankBeat."

[Thule]

Losthorizoner "SkankBeat" responds to Patrick Mooney's post with this classic:

Ladies and gentlemen, it's the battle of the half-wits. Which of these Mighty Morons will rule Lost Horizon from today and until their own incarceration?

In the red corner, with zero victories and one self-proclaimed draw. If Petey sneezes, this guy will be right there to declare it the most brilliant sneeze ever! Patrick "Loony" Mooney.

In the blue corner, with the answer to everything, but the solution to nothing. If you got a problem, he'll be there to serve up some common law and send you out to do battle. The drover with the trover! SkankBeat.

Leeeeeeet's get reeeeeeady to fumble!

[Gregg]

I think Skank has become aware that it is not uncommon for a lawyer in suit to prepare beforehand a writ, decision, motion etc... and have it ready for the judge to sign if he is so inclined. Is it not also common for in certain cases for the Judge to direct counsel from one side or the other to prepare a document? Anyhow, perhaps our uncommonly stupid common law expert is under the impression that just anyone can walk in, put papers in front of a judge and he HAS to sign them or Skank can go all common law on his ass.

[Thule]

Allow me to correct...

Anyhow, perhaps our uncommonly stupid common law expert is under the impression that just anyone can walk in, put papers in front of a judge and he HAS to sign them or [someone else] can go all common law on his ass.