Hendrickson follower Mooney on the need for lawyers

[Famspear]

Peter Hendrickson snuggle-meister Patrick Mooney writes:

One definite way to garner a serious response from the IRS is to take them to Court (any court will do). This is the path that all warriors presently tackling the beast are encouraged to consider. Force them to bare their corrupt game on the table. There are lots of corrupt courts and judges, to be sure...but not all of them. It is a minefield they are fearful of walking.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 7990#25758

Yeah, just like they were "fearful" of you, Patrick, in your Tax Court cases.

My goal is to prove it can be done without hiring a lawyer...as some will never take up the mantle of this fight if it means shelling out your money to an attorney.

[ . . . ]The idea that someone MUST have a lawyer to defend themselves or assert their rights is an anathema to the very concept of the rule of law.

Yet, back around the year 1791, the Founding Fathers thought that in criminal cases, insuring the defendant's right to have the Assistance of Counsel (that means "a lawyer") was so important that they embodied that protection in the Bill of Rights, in the Sixth Amendment.

If the laws are written in such a fashion that we require a "priestly caste" to decipher its meaning for us, we have clearly left normal reality for alien territory.

Well, then we apparently left "normal reality" hundreds of years ago, grasshopper.

Patrick, the laws of England became complicated, arcane, and beyond the ken of the average person, etc., long before the founding of this Republic (the laws of the preceding Colonies having been based on the system of English common law).

Yes, there is a right to proceed without having your own lawyer. Usually, you do so at your peril.

[Imalawman]

People constantly bitch and moan about legal complexity. I usually start out by saying, "Ok, your wish is granted let's start from scratch. But let's just take murder, we'll re-do the laws for murder. So, what's the first law for murder? How about, 'no one shall kill another person'. Obviously, we will have firm this up a bit, right? I mean, how about war? How about by accident? So, we'll probably want to add intent, right? So, how about this - 'no one shall intentionally kill another person'. Hmmm, well, now I see an issue with 'intentionally'. Does that include a person who's walked in on their spouse cheating with someone and snaps and kills someone an in instant? Does that count as intent? Maybe we should add another statute that deals with intent..."

Well, you get the point. Usually, they do as well. In the process, I point out that lawyers are trained to see where a law has definitional weakness and/or court clarification. Laws are necessarily complex in a complex society like ours. Because legal complexity is a certainty, experts are also a necessity to deal with the law. It simply cannot be avoided - for better or for worse.

[Pottapaug1938]

In Robert C. Black's "Constitutionalism: The White Men's Ghost Dance", which I have mentioned on Quatloos before, he makes the following comment about King James I of England:

"In 1607, the king announced that he would join his judges on the bench at Westminster. Common Law, he had heard, was 'Natural Reason' ...(or) common sense -- and he had at least as much Natural Reason as anybody! Gently but firmly, Sir Edward Coke corrected His Majesty. It was true that the Common Law was based on Natural Reason, but it was not identical with it. To expound 'the Artificial Reason of the Law' required experts: judges."

For those who have not seen the article, here it is again:

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bl ... 01650.html

[Nikki]

One definite way to garner a serious response from the IRS is to take them to Court

Other than Tax Court, the following scenario unfilds:

1 - Department of Justice intercedes, moving that the case to be against the Unied States, not the IRS.

2 - (If the case is in anything other than a Federal court) DoJ moves to have the case transferred to a federal District court.

3 - DoJ Moves to have the case dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or for violation of the anti-injunction act.

4 - Case is dismissed

Thank you. Next contestant, please.

[Lorax]

If you're going to try and act as your own attorney you sure as hell better know what you're doing. There's a reason why pro se tax deniers keep racking up sanctions.

[notorial dissent]

You're saying the old maxim, "fool for a client" applies, or is that just axiomatic???

[ASITStands]

In Robert C. Black's "Constitutionalism: The White Men's Ghost Dance", which I have mentioned on Quatloos before, he makes the following comment about King James I of England:

"In 1607, the king announced that he would join his judges on the bench at Westminster. Common Law, he had heard, was 'Natural Reason' ...(or) common sense -- and he had at least as much Natural Reason as anybody! Gently but firmly, Sir Edward Coke corrected His Majesty. It was true that the Common Law was based on Natural Reason, but it was not identical with it. To expound 'the Artificial Reason of the Law' required experts: judges."

For those who have not seen the article, here it is again:

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bl ... 01650.html

Link doesn't work. It's a great quote. Thanks.

[Pottapaug1938]

In Robert C. Black's "Constitutionalism: The White Men's Ghost Dance", which I have mentioned on Quatloos before, he makes the following comment about King James I of England:

"In 1607, the king announced that he would join his judges on the bench at Westminster. Common Law, he had heard, was 'Natural Reason' ...(or) common sense -- and he had at least as much Natural Reason as anybody! Gently but firmly, Sir Edward Coke corrected His Majesty. It was true that the Common Law was based on Natural Reason, but it was not identical with it. To expound 'the Artificial Reason of the Law' required experts: judges."

For those who have not seen the article, here it is again:

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bl ... 01650.html

Link doesn't work. It's a great quote. Thanks.

See if this works. The e-mail filters here prevent me from doing more, right now:

http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk ... 01650.html

[Imalawman]

In Robert C. Black's "Constitutionalism: The White Men's Ghost Dance", which I have mentioned on Quatloos before, he makes the following comment about King James I of England:

"In 1607, the king announced that he would join his judges on the bench at Westminster. Common Law, he had heard, was 'Natural Reason' ...(or) common sense -- and he had at least as much Natural Reason as anybody! Gently but firmly, Sir Edward Coke corrected His Majesty. It was true that the Common Law was based on Natural Reason, but it was not identical with it. To expound 'the Artificial Reason of the Law' required experts: judges."

For those who have not seen the article, here it is again:

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bl ... 01650.html

Link doesn't work. It's a great quote. Thanks.

See if this works. The e-mail filters here prevent me from doing more, right now:

http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk ... 01650.html

Well, its a good article, but it tries to lump constitutionalists with sovereigns. Maybe its an English writer or something, but it overreaches in its attempt to make the article more relevant than it really is. Certainly, he debunks the likes of Van Pelts and other common law sovereigns, but you can't lump libertarians and conservatives into that group. I have a high regard for our constitution - its a great document and it should be adhered to strictly, whenever possible. That doesn't mean that I have the silly notion that the world was perfect in 1776 or whenever. Nor does any rational conservative or libertarian. So, I bristle at his attempt to validate his article, which does a nice job of pointing out the stupidity of a few extremists.

[Pottapaug1938]

I don't know that I'd equate constitutionalists with libertarians or conservatives. I generally respect those in the latter two groups, even if I don't agree with them; but the "constitutionalists" of which this article speaks are more the type who treat the Constitution almost as a fetish, which says what they want it to say but which has been distorted by the corrupt courts, etc. etc. etc. There's a fine distinction, perhaps (I can't view the article here, so I can't double-check it); but I would put most libertarians and conservatives on the "thinking" side of the line, while the constitutional fetishists are on the "brainless" side.

[silversopp]

I understand that you need someone as the arbiter of what the law means when two parties dispute the meaning, however I think judges are regarded too highly. Judges are not objective experts on the law, they are just another layer of partisanship. Appointment of judges always seems to end up based on political reasons, not on the level of expertise they have on an issue. While they dance around this, it comes down to whether or not a judge will likely interpret an issue the way the ruling party wants them to rule. You hear more about the race, gender, and religion of the judges than anything else.

Perhaps it works better on the district/circuit court level than the Supreme Court.

[Prof]

I understand that you need someone as the arbiter of what the law means when two parties dispute the meaning, however I think judges are regarded too highly. Judges are not objective experts on the law, they are just another layer of partisanship. Appointment of judges always seems to end up based on political reasons, not on the level of expertise they have on an issue. While they dance around this, it comes down to whether or not a judge will likely interpret an issue the way the ruling party wants them to rule. You hear more about the race, gender, and religion of the judges than anything else.

Perhaps it works better on the district/circuit court level than the Supreme Court.

The methods of selecting judges vary from state to state and state to federal. On the federal level, all are appointed -- and Art. III judges by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for life without dimunition in remuneration. Some federal judges are good, some great, some not so great. Some are party hacks, others very non-partisan.

In states like Texas, judges are elected in partisan races. Some are good, some great, some not so much. Such elections do allow special interests to fund state wide races. The Texas Supreme Court has had some swings in philosophy that look almost legislative.

Other states appoint subject to subsequent elections, including "retention or rejection" elections. If the judge is not re-elected, the governor appoints a replacement who stands for an "up or down" vote at the next election. This is IIRC what the Missouri Plan does and that plan is used in CA, IIRC. Still other states appoint. SC did "appoint" but by legislative election, which meant that all or almost all were ex-legislators. I don't know what SC does today. Some judges were good, some great, some worthless.

Ultimately, there is no way to consistently pick good judges. Every system has its drawbacks. The federal system of lifetime appointment does give a person great freedom -- see, e.g., Souter -- and some use that freedom responsibly. Others become pricks.

Elections do give the public a voice; no uses that voice, since no one pays attention to judicial races.

And on, and on, and on.

[Arthur Rubin]

CA's system for judges is a little more complicated....

Appealate judges are appointed by the governor, possibly with approval by the legislature, and are subject to up-or-down elections every 12 years.

Trial judges are elected in county-wide elections every four years; usually, sitting judges are unopposed, but, in one case in the 1990s, a sitting judge convicted of some serious crime was defeated by a write-in.

[LPC]

I understand that you need someone as the arbiter of what the law means when two parties dispute the meaning, however I think judges are regarded too highly.

Who regards judges "too highly"?

Not any lawyers I know. The lawyers I know simply regard judges as the people you have to deal with to decide the dispute. There no "regarded too highly" that I've seen. (In the last conversation I had with another lawyer about a particular judge, the other lawyer--who knew him well--referred to him as "not just an idiot, but a malicious idiot." I don't consider that to be "regarded too highly.")

There is a high regard (I think) for the system (but not the individual judges), for the simple reason that it's all we've got. Lawyers respect the decisions of trial judges, and trial judges respect the opinions of appellate judges, and appellate judges respect the opinions of supreme court judges, for the same reason that privates respect the decisions of sergeants, and sergeants respect the decisions of officers, and officers respect the decisions of generals. In both cases, the alternative to that kind of respect is anarchy and chaos. You can't have trial judges deciding cases differently from waht appellate judges have decided for the same reason that you can't have sergeants deciding that a war should be fought differently from the way that the officers and generals have decided.

Judges are not objective experts on the law, they are just another layer of partisanship. Appointment of judges always seems to end up based on political reasons, not on the level of expertise they have on an issue. While they dance around this, it comes down to whether or not a judge will likely interpret an issue the way the ruling party wants them to rule. You hear more about the race, gender, and religion of the judges than anything else.

Perhaps it works better on the district/circuit court level than the Supreme Court.

Federal district court appointees are usually determined by the senator of the state in which the district court sits. There's a certain amount of politics involved, but the appointee has to be qualified, and district court appointees are not going to be deciding presidential elections, or whether abortions should be legal.

Supreme Court appointees have become very political, because the Supreme Court has become involved with a lot of issues that are very political, such as abortion. And cases that come to the Supreme Court are by their very nature cases that could go either way. If the case were easy or clear-cut, the circuit courts would be unanimous and there would be little reason for the Supreme Court to intervene. And, when a case could go either way, the personal opinions/leanings of the individual justices become critical. (The fact that Bush v. Gore was decided along strict political lines was not coincidental.)

That's the political reality that now exists.

[wserra]

What Dan said.

[Imalawman]

(The fact that Bush v. Gore was decided along strict political lines was not coincidental.)

I swear democrats will be whining about this case until the day they die. First, the main opinion was a 7-2 opinion. This was the legal determination. Secondly, the remedy was 5-4, yes, along party lines, but neither the majority or the minority remedy was dispositive. Gore could have then proceeded to State court to establish that December 12 was not the final date for the recount. However, Gore chose not to do so. Frankly, its a case that's really bothered me because the democrats have used that to seriously undermine integrity of the SCOTUS. For all of the whining that conservatives do about "liberal, rogue justices" - Democrats match them step by step with whining about political justices voting on party lines.

Well, you probably didn't mean anything by it, but I'm sick of people continuing to whine about Bush v. Gore.

Otherwise, I totally agree with what you said.

[Famspear]

Patrick Mooney is baaaaackk. At losthorizons, he writes:

My personal successes are as follows:

1) I no longer live in fear of the IRS, or the Federal Government

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 5862#25862

In other words, "I've replaced a morbid, unnatural fear of the IRS and the government with a set of morbid, unnatural delusional beliefs about the IRS and the government."

2) I no longer have any of my earnings turned over to the Feds

In other words, "I cheat."

3) I walked into Tax Court nearly six months ago and have left them speechless thus far.

In other words, "The Tax Court simply hasn't ruled yet. I am too delusional to recognize that this does not mean what I desperately want to believe it means, and I am too stupid to understand what is going to happen to me."

4) For the first time, the IRS acknowledged that I have a zero tax liability for 2009, despite receiving erroneous W-9s and W-2s, just as they had in every previous year they alleged a frivolous filing for the exact same type of claim for refund.

In other words, "I am delusional."

But, to underscore the most important point, the CTC [Cracking the Code] fight is not about "saving you money". It is about justice, pure and simple. Right now, a great american and human being is behind bars because he was brave enough to show us the truth about the law. The truth that remains correct, despite his incarceration in Federal prison, which is for purely (and admitted) politcal [sic] purposes.

In other words, "I am a bit obsessed with Pete Hendrickson."

It is amazing to me that people still want to spend their money and time researching other methods, when CTC has proven to be 100% TRUE. No software to by [sic], no consultants to pay...just knowledge of the law and your willingness to stand up for it.

In other words, "It is amazing to me that people don't believe that the Cracking the Code tax scam is correct just because the author of the book is in prison for using Cracking the Code on his own tax returns and every one of his followers who has fought over Cracking the Code has lost their cases." In other words, "I am an idiot."

Ultimately, none of us will ever be successful (as a people and a nation), as long as Peter Hendrickson remains behind bars.

In other words, "I am an idiot SQUARED."

......But I also am not going to let this forum turn into a discussion about alternative methods of fighting the IRS that are not in line with CTC.

In other words, "Let's not talk about other delusions. Let's just continue to talk about the Cracking the Code delusion."

[Nikki]

3) I walked into Tax Court nearly six months ago and have left them speechless thus far.

Patrick Michael Mooney; USTC Docket 021647-06
- ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION ENTERED, Judge Chiechi. Resp.
- U.S.C.A. 4 Cir. Mandate 04/07/09. Decision Affirmed

Patrick Michael Mooney; USTC Docket 008128-09
- MOTION by petr. for summary judgment 3/15/10
- Denied 3/15/10

PMM seems to be dwelling somewhere near planet Merrill.

[LPC]

Patrick Michael Mooney; USTC Docket 008128-09
- MOTION by petr. for summary judgment 3/15/10
- Denied 3/15/10

Where do you get "Denied" from?

All I see on the on-line docket is a trial on 3/15/2010, various stipulations and memoranda filed the same day, a motion for summary judgment docketed the same day, and a trial transcript received on 3/23/2010. And that's it. Nothing else since the trial and motion.

[wserra]

Where do you get "Denied" from?

The continuation page for docket entry 14 (Mooney's summary judgment motion), under "Action/Status Date", says "DN 03/15/2010". I've never had a Tax Court case, but according to the abbreviations list "DN" means "denied".

The "NW" after "Mooney" means "nitwit".