When Will Patrick Mooney Announce His Loss At LostHeads?

[wserra]

Go "post mortem" the splatter all you want.

Their "post-mortem" shows that Mooney flapped his left arm harder than he flapped his right. That's why it didn't work.

[Thule]

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

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.

A bit late for that. Googling "patric mooney tax court" gives you a list of pages where people laugh at Mooney's stupidity.

http://www.google.com/search?q=patrick+ ... tartPage=1

[Famspear]

Retrieved from a Google cache of material at Bob Hurt's web site:

From: Morgan Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: FW: Please reconsider your advice about Mr. Hendrickson

Patrick,
Good day sir.
I recently received some tripemail from a provocateur who was banished from Lost Horizons.
Please read the email and attachment.

In the attachment he mentions that you were sanctioned by the court on February 7. It appears Pablo Rodriguez aka David Diemer is trying to get some mileage from this recent development. I'm not sure if it's something you wish to address at the LH website, but I thought I would keep you apprised, since your name is being used. I'm committed to fighting the fraud (currently waiting to hear back on a CP-15 rebuttal I sent) and I thank you for being on the front lines and for your dedication to principle.
Regards,
Morgan Edwards

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... google.com

In the same cache, this appears to be a response from Patrick Mooney:

To: 'Morgan Edwards'
Subject: RE: Please reconsider your advice about Mr. Hendrickson
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:04:58 -0500

Dear Morgan, et al,

Thank you for sharing this latest piece of information with me. I have no comment on what was said about my being “sanctioned” by the Tax Court yet, because I have not received any official communication from them yet. It might be in the mail today or later this week. Two weeks ago, I filed a second motion for summary judgment with the Tax Court, because they hadn’t yet ruled on the case that I put before them in a trail on march 15, 2010. It will be interesting to see what their verdict is and I most certainly will attempt to comment once I receive it.

As for the attachment attacking Peter’s method of correcting the record, I fail to see the logic in it. The focus is being shifted to once again finding, the “correct and proper way” to file a tax return that reflects the truth of the information found in CTC, without triggering the negative assault of the IRS bureaucracy upon us. If only we could find a way to kiss the IRS’ ass while asking for the return of our property, then maybe they will allow the sheeple to leave the shearing gates of the Federal holding pen our property and ourselves are constantly moving around in.

The handout is flatly wrong in describing the judicial outcome of the Hendrickson case, which assumes that the courts behaved correctly… because courts always do…right?

The law says when a taxpayer introduces a dispute, the burden of proof is on the secretary. Using IRS forms to create that dispute should not be the issue of controversy if the law is judged with the interests of the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE in hand. But in Hendrickson’s case, and my own, the government has avoided the controversy altogether…never once having to prove in front of a jury (or the judge) that its allegations of taxable activity, relied on from third party hearsay, is indeed accurate and beyond the shadow of a doubt. How is that justice? How can you base the correctness of your position on this?

It is important to understand that a tax liability has never been proven in Pete’s case, or even asserted at trial. The judge declared the issue not in controversy and did not allow it to come up at all in trial (depriving Peter of the right to confront his accusers), and then jerry-rigged the jury instructions to prevent jurors from actually looking at the law that Peter relied upon for his defense .

What Peter, myself and the hundreds of other people who are complaining to the “Tax Return Team”, are actually experiencing is the government using the tenuous credibility it still has left to intimidate people into giving up the claim of their property and to submit to the reality of Federal Slavery…or indentured servitude, if you prefer that term.

You’ve admitted that Pete’s understanding of the law is correct, despite what you think about his remedy. Yet I can not hear a single person put forth a more comprehensive plan for resolving the situation. If Pablo and his team have something to say, then say it….lucidly, clearly…and let the success of their remedy be known. If you’ve got something that will get Peter out of jail, then spit it out. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than having an experience of cognitive dissonance. Meaning that…

You recognize the government is benefitting by colluding in a pronounced ignorance of the tax laws…yet you are still ascribing legitimacy to this government and apologizing for it when it uses color of law techniques to suppress those who are brave enough to see the government as a servant instead of master, and are acting in GOOD FAITH to correct an erroneous (and potentially harmful) record. You are even justifying their BAD FAITH tactics. This is absolute lunacy.

What you are really trying to avoid is paying the ultimate price for your liberty. The ultimate price means to stand up and say what your government is doing is bullshit…on so many levels…but you want to keep watching your American Idol and Football and keep hoping they will leave you and your family alone, so that you don’t have to suffer what Peter has suffered. My only advice to you is to then leave the field…you are not brave enough for this fight…and you deserve the creeping fascism you are sowing for your children’s future.

You can try an excuse all of this as legal semantics, but it is much more than that. When you look at the larger picture, in the context of 9/11 and the War on Terror, what we are witnessing is a concerted effort by the MONEY CLASS to enact a virtual and real slavery of the American people. It is an overt attempt to reverse the gains of the Enlightenment period from which this country was born. Instead of a despotic monarch at the helm, we now have a moneyed oligarchy hidden behind layers of seemingly legitimate bureaucracy. The end goal is the same…your subservience, without a peep, thank you very much.

I didn’t sign up for that. And the sophistry behind the tripe that Pablo is putting out is utterly disgusting to my soul and the principles of freedom it values.

I am not at labor to produce truth to the government beyond my own best efforts to convey it…they must present the truth to me, satisfactorily so, in order to compel my REASON to accept their DELEGATED authority.

I think my position is clear. If the Tax Court ruling has anything to add to it, or causes it to be amended, I shall make note of that for you all.


Happy Woden’s Day!


Patrick

[Gregg]

A few notes at random:

I have never before today bothered to read the Unlearning webiste....and now I know why, I spent sixteen years in college and reading the first page canceled out 2 of them, but I digress, I didn't know what Patrick looked like and there is a link to buy some of his product, so I clicked i swear just to see what the guy looked like...on one of the pages is the this little gem....

Ladies and gentlemen, protect your keyboard before reading further

The original Interview with
Patrick Mooney
This CD is packed with over 60 minutes of:

* Where the Institute's inspiration originated
* The challenges of the unlearning process
* Being a Messiah
* The purpose of the Institute and this website
* Pat Mooney's own personal unlearning journey
* Why bother to 'unlearn'

And much more!

Ego much?

2) I also just read the actual case in whole as opposed to the commentary with snippets, if Mooney wants to appeal this case, on at least one point I agree it should be remanded, somewhere in it I know I read the Decision of a Federal Judge who wrote "(Mooney) is an intellegent and well educated man" if that's not judicial error or abuse of the Judge's discretion or something that can be reversed, then the entire appeals concept is flawed.

3) AT ONE TIME WE ALLOWED THIS BOZO TO TEACH HIGH SCHOOL!!! The mere thought chills me.

4) Mooney has a degree in Political Science and makes the statement that America is becoming a "fascist state" Someone please inform him that the President of the United States is now more of a communist than the President of the People's Republic of China. Notwithstanding the insult I consider it to be to the few million guys who fought to end real fascism in WWII so that this bozo could both demean what they fought for and to protect his right to be so stupid in public. Who among us thinks Mussolini would have let this ass hat go on?

Okay, I'm done with Mooney for today, I need to go have a colonic now.

[Famspear]

Gregg, I actually did laugh out loud. Good, funny post!

[Dr. Caligari]

It just keeps getting funnier. Our old friend skankbeat has started a new thread at LostHopes called, "MOONEY V. GOLIATH," with this brilliant post (bolding added):

An internal memorandum of the US Tax Court has become publicly available that outlines a proposed decision regarding Patrick Mooney's US Tax Court petition. A version of this internal memorandum can be found here:

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

This offers a good learning experience. The proposed decision reinforces everything in CTC and what has been discussed on this forum. We have access to both the case documents and the petitioner to get clarification of facts. Unlike other court case, we do not have to speculate based on the careful presentation by a magistrate.

The proposed decision's structure is pretty straightforward. Falsification of evidence was made to initiate a hi-jacking of process. Once process was hi-jacked, adverse action became cascading. This is how the judicial notice was pushed out of view, how the 1040 testimony was squashed, how the frivolous penalty was preserved, and more.

Below are some key facts contained in the proposed decision:

Quote:
FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated.
The parties’ stipulations of fact are incorporated in this
opinion by reference and are found accordingly.
...
During 2005, petitioner received $32,207 for services performed
for Interstate Industries, Inc. (Interstate Industries), and
$2,400 for services performed for the Centre, Inc. (the Centre).
...
Petitioner submitted to both entities Forms W-4 on which he
claimed to be exempt from income tax withholding because he
expected to have no Federal tax liability.


Quote:
OPINION

Petitioner conceded at trial that he received the amount of
compensation set out in the notice of deficiency for his 2005 tax
year.
...
Significantly, petitioner also filed false Forms W-4 with
his employers, in which he claimed not to be subject to Federal
income tax or income tax withholding.
...
The record contains a substitute for return for tax year
2005. The substitute for return is subscribed and includes a
section 6020(b) certification; Form 4549, Income Tax Examination
Changes; and Form 886-A, Explanation of Items. Those forms are
sufficient for respondent to compute petitioner’s tax liability
for tax year 2005, and respondent has certified that they will be
treated as a return.
...
However, we lack jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to
review the Commissioner’s determination to assess the frivolous
return penalty under sec. 6702.


Once Patrick Mooney's activity of right was characterized as "performing services", everything else cascaded from there. Establishment of "compensation", "wages", "employer", "employee", comes from "performing services". The bootstrapping process complete, Patrick Mooney becomes a "taxpayer" with a tax liability. The magistrate then went into auto mode to address issue of penalties as if in a "deficiency proceeding".

I doubt Patrick Mooney would have permitted characterization of his activity of right as "performing services", which we all know deals with being an "officer" or "employee" of the federal government. To admit to "performing services" is to admit one had a "legal relationship of employer and employee". This was certainly being rebutted in petition documents such as the filed and disregarded judicial notice.

If Patrick Mooney genuinely "performed services", then the federal government can produce the signed written contract establishing such. Has this contract been submitted into evidence? Why not? I would demand to see the signed written contract that proves that one agreed to "perform services". Any contract with a payer is moot, as the contract must contain the government as a party.

I note a substitute return was relied upon as evidence. It appears the frivolous penalty is being used to destroy sworn testimony on 1040s without having to rebut it with equal or higher evidence. Basically a claim of lying is made, and the government is relieved from burden of proof because congress made the frivolous penalty beyond court jurisdiction. Catch-22. This is unlawful as unrebuttable presumption violates due process, see Vlandis v. Kline, 412 US 441 (1973). What the government is doing is falsifying evidence and attempting to justify it under the color of law. No go.

I note the W-4 was also relied upon as evidence. Did Patrick really claim "exempt" on the W-4? I doubt that Patrick Mooney would have left the W-4 unrebutted. The W-4 and the legal presumptions it creates has been exhaustively discussed on this forum. CTC warns against claiming "exempt" on W-4s. At this point i am unsure whether the W-4 is being used to establish "performing services". In any case, the sworn testimony on this document, and the attempt of quasi-contract behind it, should not be dismissed.

Everyone should note that the very first "finding of fact" is the existence of a private stipulation contract that Patrick Mooney allegedly entered into. "The Parties" will have to be defined, but could include the government attorney and magistrate. Patrick Mooney makes no mention of entering into a private stipulation contract, so one can only conclude that this contract is a fabrication. It could be that this contract is the pivot point of the case, where it is listed as the first fact, and all later false facts derive from it. Question, what is this private stipulation contract regarding evidence? What was termed and conditioned? Was it agreed that certain documents, such as the judicial notice, 1040s, and others, be put out of view? Was it agreed that Patrick Mooney's activity of right would be characterized as "performing services" in evidence?

I would demand to see proof of the written and signed stipulation contract regarding evidence that the magistrate claims exists and presume to have seen and can produce upon demand. Certainly this private stipulation contract has been submitted into evidence? If the magistrate cannot substantiate his "findings of fact", then the proposed decision has no basis in fact, and thus no basis in law, and would be a fraud on the court. That is probably why the decision is ONLY a proposed decision at this point- the testing of the waters.

I also note how the magistrate has attempted to create doctrine for the IRS to negligently rely upon when dealing with future CTC-educated returns that make claim of withheld property. It might be prudent to attach cover letter with 1040s to explain the intended purpose of the form- to claim property taken and detained without authority- so it cannot be presumed otherwise.

Quote:
The majority of courts, including this Court, have held
that, generally, a return that contains only zeros is not a valid
return.


At the end the judge warns about raising issue further.

Quote:
If petitioner persists in raising frivolous arguments before this Court...
we will not hesitate in the future to impose a significantly higher penalty.
Petitioner should think carefully before he files another frivolous or groundless
petition with this Court.


No rule, procedure, penalty can abridge the exercise of rights, See Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966). Patrick Mooney has the right to reclaim property taken and detained without his authority, and government officers have the duty to return it. When Congress converted the US Tax Court a court of record in 1969, it was to make the arbitrary decisions coming from this administrative body binding. If Patrick Mooney goes into district court, he will have this finality from another court of record to contend with. So it is best to confront things now, rather than later.

There is no need to make another petition. Remedy can be as simple as objecting to the current proceedings. This forces the court to revert to a court of record. As far as i know Patrick Mooney has not authorized the US Tax Court to act in any manner other than a court of record. Any private proceedings cannot lawfully continue.

I would raise fraud on the court and direct the magistrate to substantiate his actions. The magistrate is simply a hired court officer and owes duties to the petitioner including explaining his actions. This is basic agent law. This raises jurisdiction barrier where court officers will have to prove jurisdiction on the record. I would demand to see proof of the signed written contracts that allegedly exist regarding evidence and "services performed".

Unless Patrick Mooney consents, the proposed decision in this private memorandum has no force of law in a court of record. It is merely an advisory opinion at this point. Like IRS trick process, trick process is being used by court officers at the US Tax Court. All i can say at this point, Patrick Mooney better start hitting the books regarding common law and know what his rights are and how to stand on them. Good luck.

Like Alice's Red Queen, skankbeat has evidently learned how to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast...

[Quixote]

On anther thread Skanky posts:

You folks fail to note that this US Tax Court document is an internal "memorandum" that has become publicly available. The cached copy i retrieved asserted that decision would be entered under "Rule 55". The latest version seems to have removed such reference. Patrick should not be discussing things at this time.

He seems to have convinced TranscriptsDontLie that the memo opinion is just a trial balloon.

[Quixote]

justinprime seems ready to blame Mooney. Mooney said the wrong magic words.

Since Patrick (allegedly) agreed he earned "income", all of his arguments would indeed be frivolous.

"Filed false Forms w-4 with his employers..." and "submitted to both entities Forms W-4 on which he claimed to be exempt..." Only persons that are liable can be exempt. Being exempt is different than not being liable in the first place. And also notice that the judge specifically says that he "filed" the w-4s to his employers, yet "submitted" w-4s to both "entities".

[grixit]

Ah, suddenly the solution becomes obvious. If Mooney performed no services, then he hasn't earned any money. So he just needs to refund the people who payed him, and he will have no tax liability!

Take that, you evil IRSS!

[Cathulhu]

Skanky, my most favorite whacka-whacka! Excellent for when you need a break from that boring reality stuff!

[notorial dissent]

So much unintended comedy!!!!!!

At this point, I am not sure who is the more delusional, PM or skanky, and they are both working at it at this point.

I can't help wondering, a little, just what it is that PM does for those two companies, that they could justify handing money to him, since according to him, he is not an "employee" of either.

I can somehow see him teaching Civics, which would explain the crowd over at Sui's depth of knowledge of the subject.

[Thule]

Skanky, my most favorite whacka-whacka! Excellent for when you need a break from that boring reality stuff!

Several other posters, including Holbrook and JustinPrime seems to be a bit tired of Skankys hints of trolls and disinformation.

Come on Scan....be specific and say exactly what you mean.
We do not need guess work here nor do we need assumptions.
We all want truth backed with facts, nothing less will do.
Now, tell us all exactly what you are saying about whom!

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... sc&start=0

Although claiming that they want truth is stretching it a bit.

[LPC]

An internal memorandum of the US Tax Court has become publicly available that outlines a proposed decision regarding Patrick Mooney's US Tax Court petition. A version of this internal memorandum can be found here:

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

[...]

Unless Patrick Mooney consents, the proposed decision in this private memorandum has no force of law in a court of record. It is merely an advisory opinion at this point.

Unbelievable.

The memorandum opinion itself includes several references to "T.C. Memo" opinions, and one reference to a "Memorandum Opinion of this Court," so Skanky obviously didn't read (or comprehend) the document.

[Dr. Caligari]

so Skanky obviously didn't read (or comprehend) the document.

...or much of anything else, either....

[silversopp]

Nice to see we CtC'ers have so many fans here.

Interesting that Harvey is now claiming that he files CtC returns. I'm sure next week he'll go back to his previous statement that he isn't a CtCer and instead uses his own secret combination of forms and magic phrases (which he can't seem to describe or explain in the slightest) to avoid taxes.

Poor Harvey...he's a protester with no guru.

[webhick]

Poor Harvey...he's a protester with no guru.

A protester without a guru
A man without a country
A dog without a bone
A cake without the frosting

[grixit]

I gave my love a cherry that had no stone
I gave my love a chicken that had no bone
I gave my love a sovereign without a clue
I gave my love a tax cheat with no guru

[Cathulhu]

Idiot online
tax cheat without a guru
Must be Harvester.

Bet that's the only haiku ever written for him.

[LPC]

I gave my love a cherry that had no stone
I gave my love a chicken that had no bone
I gave my love a sovereign without a clue
I gave my love a tax cheat with no guru

How can there be a cherry without a stone?
How can there be a chicken without a bone?
How can there be a sovereign without a clue?
How can there be a tax cheat with no guru?

A cherry when it’s abloomin’, it has no stone.
A chicken when it’s a pippin, it has no bone.
A sovereign when he’s a writin’ will have no clue.
The tax cheat who’s a guru has no guru.

[Imalawman]

Idiot online
tax cheat without a guru
Must be Harvester.

Bet that's the only haiku ever written for him.

If you get Famspear started back on his poetry phase, you'll be fine a minimum of 1,000Q.