Crackhead et ux. Plumb New Depths of Stupidity

[Cpt Banjo]

A new posting at the Crackhead Asylum makes you wonder how some people who haven't the brains of a banana slug have survived so long. It seems that the wife of "fight4rights" thought she could avoid an IRS Notice of Levy served on her employer by "revoking the withholding agreement":

In February 2009, my wife submitted a written termination of the withholding agreement pursuant to 26 CFR 31.3402 (p)-1(b)(2). The company continued to withhold income taxes in spite of the written termination. In February 2011, two years later, the company received a Notice of Levy (for a frivolous civil penalty plus interest) and, in spite of my wife's written objections and request that the company verify certain information with the IRS before complying with the administrative Notice of Levy, the company all too gladly complied and began stealing over $2,000 from each of her paychecks this past month, and they're still not done.

After all, state law trumps federal law:

Florida Statute 222.11 protects the disposable earnings of anyone who qualifies as 'head of family' from garnishment, which my wife qualifies as head of family in this case. Further, Florida Statutes Chapter 77 makes no provision for an administrative Notice of Levy for garnishment but requires a court order according to our understanding. Furthermore, the relation back doctrine requires a court order.

Not only that, federal law trumps the IRS:

As well, income taxes fall under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act as 'debt' which also requires a court order.

(Memo to fight4rights: even if a tax deficiency were a "debt" under the FDCPA (which it isn't), the definition of "debt collector" excludes governmental employees (see 5 USC 803(6)(C)), and nothing in the statute requires a court order.

The wife's employer's lawyer responded to Mrs. fight4rights:

My wife submitted all of the applicable law to the company, including a copy of http://www.scribd.com/doc/2682567/Socia ... t-Required which discusses at length the withholding agreement issue, a copy of her original written termination of the withholding agreement, and other applicable law. Yet, in spite of this, the attorney (which obviously didn't read everything) responded that the company must obey the Notice of Levy, citing a few court cases, and must start withholding income taxes at the rate of a single person because she refuses to fill out (enter into) a new W-4 withholding agreement. To view a copy of the attorney's response, go to:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51237022

Despite fight4right's attempt to blot out the personal information from the response, his wife's name and address, her employer, and the attorney's name are all visible on the copy of the response. Proofreading is such a lost art.

But wait, there's more! Who should come to fight4right's rescue other than....Patrick Mooney. Mooney's sage advice: quit your job. Brilliant!

I have been faced with a similar situation at my company. After working for a year as a freelance worker (I resigned my position as an "employee"..in common sense of the word..last February), my company is deciding to treat me as an "employee" because they are worried about an IRS audit if they don't withhold from my earnings.

My answer? I quit.

What will happen to me? Don't know...a part of that is in god's hands. But I know that I will not be a slave any more to the Federal Government, especially in regards that I have a full understanding of who they are and who they represent. (Hint: NOT the American people).

You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 7311#27311

[Judge Roy Bean]

Wyndham Vacation Ownership may have another job opening soon as Ms. Shaver's husband sounds just dumb enough to keep at it.

[webhick]

Despite fight4right's attempt to blot out the personal information from the response, his wife's name and address, her employer, and the attorney's name are all visible on the copy of the response. Proofreading is such a lost art.

I always love it when people don't understand that permanent marker does not cover up printer ink. No matter how many layers of marker you put on, the original ink will still come through. And then when you shine a light through the paper (such as with copying or scanning), the difference becomes even more visible. This is true with both laser and inkjet "ink."

There are many ways to combat the power of the ink. The secret is mine to keep.

Also, if the folks over at LH are reading this: when you decide to fail this hard at redaction, it's best to put a few pieces of paper between the pages so your failure doesn't bleed through to the rest of the pages in the document.

[grixit]

I just scan the document and use graphics editting to remove the sensitive parts. No magic marker needed-- unless you just wanted to snort it.

[ashlynne39]

How do these people hold down jobs? They're really too stupid for words, but beyond that, how many times can you ask you employer to play a part in the tax protestor game and still keep your job?

[webhick]

I just scan the document and use graphics editting to remove the sensitive parts. No magic marker needed-- unless you just wanted to snort it.

SHHHHH!

[Famspear]

And what kind of happy response do we find to Patrick Michael ("Blowhard Junior") Mooney's brilliant explanation? This from user "kae":

They [Internal Revenue Service] have stolen 100% of my monthly money from my retirement and want my Harley. That's all I have. They don't care about the written law/rule.... I contacted my Congressman and his office is making sure the Appeals process is in progress and is telling the Taxpayer Advocate " Usually the Taxpayer Advocate is working on behalf of the constituent, because they work directly for Congress, not the IRS." and "I will contact your Taxpayer Advocate and tell her that you no longer desire her to assist with your case. You will take up your grievances during your hearing." I thought that was pretty good.
I am begging the Congressman to get the IRS under control, they are distroying [sic] our country.
If we all call our Congress/persons perhaps they will get something done

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 7318#27318

(bolding added).

Another Cracking the Code success story!

[Gregg]

Hey, Geitner would look good on a Harley.

[notorial dissent]

Mooney is an idiot, plain and simple, and he keeps proving it. He can keep filing nonsense and racking up friv pens until he has nothing at all left, assuming he has anything left to seize to begin with. He has brought it all down on his own head, and at this point, I don't think there is anything that he can do to get out from under the hammer, short of shutting up, and that isn't likely to happen.

[Gregg]

I just looked again at his unlearning site. He should have no problem with an insanity defense if he needs one. If you go, be warned, he calls David Ickes the most important man in the world..protect your keyboards.

[Imalawman]

The in-house lawyer put together a very nice response. It astounds me how quickly they dismiss something like that. It's like they started reading, knew that it disagreed with them and stopped reading. It's the equivalent of the adolescent sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping out of the room. I get the occasional call from in-house lawyers about withholding issues and we don't usually take the time to put together something like that. Mainly, I don't want to even humor people like this. We just basically say, "talk to the IRS, we're withholding".

These people were actually earning some decent money it sounds like. The solution to that "problem"? Not pay taxes, quit your job and lose your property. There, now they're more like the typical tax protester.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The in-house lawyer put together a very nice response. It astounds me how quickly they dismiss something like that. It's like they started reading, knew that it disagreed with them and stopped reading. It's the equivalent of the adolescent sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping out of the room. ...

I read snippets of the document they submitted and sure enough it's the old clap-trap from "Law Research Group."

It's amazing how long the half-life of that kind of stuff is.

[Famspear]

What is really scary about "fight4rights"'s mistake is the reminder that with the internet, there isn't much privacy any more. In less than a half hour, through legal, open sources, I was able to find:

1. "fight4rights"'s real name (his full name);

2. his date of birth;

3. his wife's real name;

4. their home address;

5. a picture of their home and the area surrounding their home;

6. an appraisal on the value of their home;

7. reliable information that fight4rights is an ex-con, with specific data on his criminal conviction;

8. the name of the company where his wife works;

9. information on the date and amount of a government loan or government-guaranteed loan they received a few years ago.

[grixit]

Keep it up and we'll have to promote you to Melon Cat, Junior Grade.

[The Operative]

What is really scary about "fight4rights"'s mistake is the reminder that with the internet, there isn't much privacy any more. In less than a half hour, through legal, open sources, I was able to find:

1. "fight4rights"'s real name (his full name);

2. his date of birth;

3. his wife's real name;

4. their home address;

5. a picture of their home and the area surrounding their home;

6. an appraisal on the value of their home;

7. reliable information that fight4rights is an ex-con, with specific data on his criminal conviction;

8. the name of the company where his wife works;

9. information on the date and amount of a government loan or government-guaranteed loan they received a few years ago.

10. They are currently in foreclosure on their house (which is in his wife's name only)

11. In June 2010, they filed a quitclaim deed attempting to transfer the property to a "trust".

[Famspear]

Keep it up and we'll have to promote you to Melon Cat, Junior Grade.

I shudder to think what information La Chatte de Melon might have on me.....

[Cpt Banjo]

fight4rights also posted the same stuff at a Yahoo group devoted to the "methods" of David Myrland.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MYRLANDsM ... sage/21491

The responses are classic examples of cluelessness.

[Quixote]

fight4rights also posted the same stuff at a Yahoo group devoted to the "methods" of David Myrland.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MYRLANDsM ... sage/21491

The responses are classic examples of cluelessness.

There was one troublemaker in the lot who asked for any cases in which the employer was successfully sued "civilly first then criminally for embezzlement, extortion, conspiracy, intent to defraud, etc."

The response was, of course, "you will have to research it............"

[.]

In less than a half hour, through legal, open sources, I was able to find

Deja vu. About 7 years ago, some clown decided that he would harass me. After 9 or 10 instances and a warning to knock it off, he decided to indulge his childishness yet again while using his employer's network.

It took very little time to find his name, DOB, his wife's name and DOB, their home address, the details of their $230,000 in mortgages, his employer and precise position, and dozens of his on-line comments on various topics.

I wrote him a nice little note detailing his transgressions against Florida's cyberstalking law and the associated maximum penalties (I'm not a lawyer, but I can sure as hell quote crystal-clear statutes,) his many violations of his employer's (a local university) written and very explicit employee conduct regulations and the associated penalties and my knowledge of the employer's in-house lawyer's name, e-mail address and phone number.

I'm quite sure that he appreciated me warning him that if he didn't desist I would instantly complain to his local police and prosecutor, complain to his employer, commence a civil lawsuit and send a complete copy of all of his juvenile efforts to his wife at her own e-mail address. Naturally, I would want her to have a fuller understanding of why he might be losing his job, might be going to prison and might be liable for civil damages.

Up to that point he had much the same disregard for consequences seen in many TPs. Unlike most TPs, he instantly agreed that he should behave himself henceforth. He groveled and begged me to do nothing, especially not to contact his wife. I thanked him for coming to his senses and told him that I was looking forward to never hearing from him again. He's remained silent, lo these many years.

You're quite right that the internet is much more transparent than many people think it is. This guy was using only his initials as a moniker, but his own public posts led me straight to him. Together with the fact that he didn't comprehend what an IP address (particularly when it's your employer's) can tell you. Almost as easy as having a court docket number. I guess idiots think that they're immune.

[Quixote]

Crackhead WatchmanOnTheTower needs help understanding an IRS letter. Maybe justinprime will read this and pass it along.

Well gang, the next salvo has arrived in the form of LTR 3175C, which I have posted below. I have copied it in its entirety for your edification, and also to hopefully generate a discussion on a good next move.

The weird thing is, the letter doesn't seem to actually tell me to do anything or tell me what Auntie Iris is going to do next.

(Emphasis added)

The IRS's letter is clearly a one size fits all boilerplate tax denier response. It is much longer than it needs to be, so Watchman may have missed the third paragraph.

If you persist in sending frivolous correspondence, we will not continue to respond to it. Our lack of response to further correspondence does not in any way convey agreement or acceptance of the arguments advanced. If you desire to comply with the law concerning your tax liability, you are encouraged to seek advice from a reputable tax practitioner or attorney.

Watchman, the IRS wants you to stop sending them gibberish. They will be consigning any further gibberish you send to the circular file. They also want you to pay your damn taxes. If you need any further help in translating from bureaucratese to moronish, let me know.