Patrick Michael Mooney in Tax Court

[LPC]

I count my "draws" as victories,...

Another sign of intellectual dishonesty desperately looking for a winning argument.

"Draws" in tax court? Don't you have to go to sudden-death overtime?

I think that he considers any "procedural" loss to be a "draw."

So, for example, if his petition is dismissed for lack of prosecution, or for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to file in time, that would be a "draw."

In fact, any opinion that doesn't refute what he says using exactly the words he thinks need to be used to refute is probably a "draw."

And the losses don't count because the courts are corrupt.

[webhick]

I count my "draws" as victories,...

Another sign of intellectual dishonesty desperately looking for a winning argument.

"Draws" in tax court? Don't you have to go to sudden-death overtime?

With fully armored battle hamsters I think.
Webhick wrote the rule, I'm sure she would know.

It's in the manual under Win, Lose, or Draw - Special Anniversary Court Edition. For those without their secret imploder ring, MOST courts only allow you to pick one (as the word OR implies), but tax court is one of the exceptions. In tax court, you can pick two if and only if you can meet any three of the following requirements:

• You can prove that you once goosed a cow, pig, horse, lemur, elephant, bull and angry rhino at the same time. To do this, you must provide video evidence of you performing said maneuver to every American embassy in the world.
• You can count to three.
• You can prove that you have successfully decorated all of your internal organs with glitter. We have a special machine that can test for this, so once you've redecorated stop into HQ and we'll have you tested. Remember not to eat anything for 24 hours before the procedure - we found that the human body tends to evacuate all food and food byproduct during the zombification portion of the procedure and I'm not in the mood to dispatch an extra intern to get rid of the mess you made on your way out.

As I said, if you can prove any three of the above items, you can choose any two of the win, lose or draw choices. The requirements are listed in degree of difficulty, so I recommend you do them in order. If you manage to retain or regain consciousness in the sixty minutes following the final requirement, you may be permitted to choose two options from the win, lose, or draw choices. I must warn you though, "uggghhh" is not one of the choices and if you even so much as whisper it on the softest breeze it will invalidate the whole enchilada.

[Nikki]

As long as Mooney, and all of a similar mind set, keep their horse-blinders on and see only the laws as they interpret them and the government as they define it, even while they sit on the curb, watching their home being sold for unpaid taxes, they will only see more evidence of a corrupt system being manipulated by shadowy background figures.

Some of them will gradually become invisible, some will find new windmills to tilt at, and some -- unfortunately -- will do wheels-up landings into IRS offices.

[ArthurWankspittle]

....

• You can prove that you once goosed a cow, pig, horse, lemur, elephant, bull and angry rhino at the same time. To do this, you must provide video evidence of you performing said maneuver to every American embassy in the world.

Which is why they've been trying to shut down wikileaks. It's all a conspiracy I tell you.

[Pottapaug1938]

As long as Mooney, and all of a similar mind set, keep their horse-blinders on and see only the laws as they interpret them and the government as they define it, even while they sit on the curb, watching their home being sold for unpaid taxes, they will only see more evidence of a corrupt system being manipulated by shadowy background figures.

Some of them will gradually become invisible, some will find new windmills to tilt at, and some -- unfortunately -- will do wheels-up landings into IRS offices.

Mooney and his ilk will never be satisfied until 1) the courts give full and extensive consideration to all of their assertions and 2) accept them as legally authoritative -- each and every one.

[notorial dissent]

The problem is that at some past point, all of their cockamamie delusions have been addressed, dissected, dismantled, parsed at great and painstaking length, and ultimately consigned to the rubbish bin of legal nonsense, and it still matters not to them since nothing that has gone before matters to them.

The phrase re-inventing the wheel has new and terrifying meaning in these circumstances. Their big problem is that they can't seem to figure out how to get the corners off.

[Nikki]

Along this line, one of the latest threads at LoserHeads addresses the failure of 26USC to provide adequate definitions of (in their word) "frivolosity"

[.]

"frivolosity"

There's just nothing like a good semi-literate moron.

As Potter Stewart first said of hard-core pornography back in the '60s, "I know it when I see it." Theses idiots have a much clearer guide as to what "frivolosity" is considering that the IRS publishes their list of specific garbage frivolous "arguments" every year. Too bad none of them can be bothered to read it.

[Nikki]

Tsk, tsk, and tsk.

Just because the IRS the IRS publishes a definitive list of arguments which have been determined to be 'frivolous' doesn't mean squat.

26USC rules and it SO fails to contain a specific -- thereby legal -- definition of 'frivolous'

So, the IRS can publish all that it wants. Those silly documents aren't even regulations in 26CFR.

What weight could they possibly have? Any non-corrupt court would HAVE to ignore them.

[LPC]

Along this line, one of the latest threads at LoserHeads addresses the failure of 26USC to provide adequate definitions of (in their word) "frivolosity"

One of the postings includes this line:

Pay careful attention to how auntie's lowest-paid employees are instructed to make the initial "frivolous" determination on legally-correct 1040 returns.

Color me confused. Hendrickson has been claiming that the refunds approved by those same "lowest-paid employees" are confirmations of the "rule of law" and the accuracy of "Cracking the Code."

Now the validity of the determinations by those same employees is held up as something that is suspect?

I'd suggest that they are being intellectual inconsistent but there are obviously no intellects there capable of recognizing an inconsistency even it smacked them in the face.

[notorial dissent]

And here all this time I thought 26USC wasn't positive law and so could and should therefore be ignored. I wish they would make up their minds, or did I miss a memo somewhere??? Webhick, are the interns making origami ritual death daggers again without permission????

[wserra]

Now the validity of the determinations by those same employees is held up as something that is suspect?

(1) Context is everything.

(2) A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

(3) What inconsistency?

[Imalawman]

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

The time between the trial and the opinion puzzled me also, because I couldn't imagine that Mooney had done anything to stun anyone (except to the extent that arrogance and stupidity can stun).

Everything is taking a long time these days in the whole appeals process. Tax Court is really slow at the moment. Six months doesn't surprise me at all. I'd be surprise if it were much faster. If someone is getting decisions returned faster, let me know your secret.

[Famspear]

It actually ended up being about eleven months of time from the time of the trial (March 2010) to the date of decision a few days ago.

[Imalawman]

It actually ended up being about eleven months of time from the time of the trial (March 2010) to the date of decision a few days ago.

hmmm, well that would the outer limit of what I would expect. I'd say that's a little longer than you'd expect for a case of this minimal of issues.

[Nikki]

It actually ended up being about eleven months of time from the time of the trial (March 2010) to the date of decision a few days ago.

hmmm, well that would the outer limit of what I would expect. I'd say that's a little longer than you'd expect for a case of this minimal of issues.

Judges have other cases to hear and write up.

They also have lives -- like sick days and vacations, etc.

Sometimes, they go to the Plaintiff or Respondent and request that an opinion be drafted for them to start from.

Sometimes, it takes several months to pass all of the Plaintiff's documents around the court to everyone gets a chance for a chuckle.