LostHead Justinprime Throwing In Towel

[Duke2Earl]

"Redeem lawful money" He'd have a better chance if he stood on his head and spit nickels. As best as I can tell, the random phrase "redeem lawful money" has no meaning whatsoever. None, nada, zilch. Using the phrase "redeem lawful money" is like telling someone to fry bananas in motor oil.

[Famspear]

"Redeem lawful money" He'd have a better chance if he stood on his head and spit nickels. As best as I can tell, the phrase "redeem lawful money" has no meaning whatsoever. None, nada zilch.

I've been pestering the hamster, Harvester/johnthetaxist/Libre/nationwide/JohnTravisHarvester, at another web site for the past few days. He continues to claim to have fallen for David Merrill ("Motor Scooter") Van Pelt's nonsense. Harvester complains -- because I haven't bothered to try to demonstrate to him that the poppycock about avoiding federal income tax by "redeeming lawful money" is indeed nonsense. His position is now that because I haven't played along with him, I have "confirmed" Motor Scooter Van Pelt's theories.



Harvey the Hamster will believe just about anything except the truth.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Redeem lawful money" He'd have a better chance if he stood on his head and spit nickels. As best as I can tell, the random phrase "redeem lawful money" has no meaning whatsoever. None, nada, zilch. Using the phrase "redeem lawful money" is like telling someone to fry bananas in motor oil.

The concept of redeeming a banknote in lawful money always meant that, when you offered your note for redemption, you could receive other money in return. A redeemer of a $20 FRN in 1925 could have gotten a $10 gold piece, $5 in one dollar bills, $2.50 in quarters and the rest in dimes, nickels and pennies. In 1940, that same person might have gotten ten dollar bills in place of the $10 gold piece, a roll of dimes and $5 in miscellaneous change. In 1964, the redeemer may have gotten a roll of quarters, a roll of dimes, a roll of nickels, and three dollar bills. Today, the redeemer might get a $10 FRN, and two $5 FRNs.

That's all redemption is, folks. Again, I will offer the following link; and please pay attemtion to what happens to the guy from Cleveland:

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon ... lawful.htm

[Famspear]

....The concept of redeeming a banknote in lawful money always meant that, when you offered your note for redemption, you could receive other money in return.....

I have an old college textbook that explains the concept -- in a somewhat humorous way. I also tried explaining these basics to Harvey the Hamster just a few days ago.

No luck, of course. Harvey claims to be soundly convinced that "Motor Scooter" Van Pelt has Found The True Way (just as did Preposterous Pete Hendrickson before him, of course).

[Famspear]

"Justinprime" may have thrown in the towel, but that never stops another Cracking-the Commode-Head from diving in head first:

Petitioned Tax Court about a month ago(Friv Pens. and Fed Notice of Levy). Rcvd phone call from IRS Attorney today trying to intimidate me into NOT pursuing my case.They again proclaimed that my "positions" are frivolous and that my return was a "zero return" on it's [sic] face.They also said the statement provided with my 4852, IRS sections 3401 and 3121 were "mis-interpretations of the code. Of course they could not explain how and would be sending me a letter with a booklet from the IRS with all the relevant case law...yeah right!. Also, that it is possible that I could be sanctioned $25k. I explained that if I'm breaking the law I will accept my punishment.

--Poster "BEEKLO"

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 7d0f#27559

OK, "BEEKLO." If you've got the $25,000 lying around, please don't spend it.

[grixit]

Motor Scooter Van Pelt

Sorry, that name is taken. It's what The Artist Formerly Known as Rerun changed his name to when he grew up and became a bubblegum singer.

[.]

Notice of Levy?

This idiot is quite a long way down the path to ruin.

[LOBO]

Justinprime scratches his head, trying to figure out where he went wrong.

Victoria -
Thanks for the explanation. If I made a mistake, it'd be one of these (or all) -
I put "0" on ALL lines of "income" on the 1040, not just the "wages" line. I've read at least 2 TC Opinions which says this is frivolous, but doesn't explain why. I can only assume that putting zero on all lines makes it look like the filer is arbitrarily putting zero just for the sake of putting zero. Also, I filed jointly, and there is some speculation about that being an admittance, though I haven't researched that at all. Third, I 'claimed' an exemption for my daughter. I thought it'd be odd to have her listed for 2009, but not 2010, so I claimed her.

It couldn't be that he put "0" on the wages line because he used a losing argument from a book where the author is in jail for following the same scheme. Nah, couldn't be that.

[.]

putting zero on all lines makes it look like the filer is arbitrarily putting zero just for the sake of putting zero.

By George, I think he's got it.

Why is it that rational people only enter non-zero values, but CrackHeads have this strange fixation with lines that require nothing? Outside of their general insanity, of course.

[Cathulhu]

By George, I think he's got it.

Why is it that rational people only enter non-zero values, but CrackHeads have this strange fixation with lines that require nothing? Outside of their general insanity, of course.

Because it's MAJIK, silly! Not only must you put in a zero, you have to use your special pen and chant, "Boom-shaka-laka" at least once for every dollar you made and aren't listing!

[Pottapaug1938]

By George, I think he's got it.

Why is it that rational people only enter non-zero values, but CrackHeads have this strange fixation with lines that require nothing? Outside of their general insanity, of course.

Because it's MAJIK, silly! Not only must you put in a zero, you have to use your special pen and chant, "Boom-shaka-laka" at least once for every dollar you made and aren't listing!

You forgot to add that your first two fingers, on the hand not holding the pen, have to be crossed.

[Famspear]

User "gdude" at losthorizons responded to "BEEKLO":

Well, you have to be liable for the penalty first! Search 6671(b) on the forum and net....there has been plenty written here about it. Are you that "person" or individual?

Do you have a duty related to a corporation/partnership? Do have a duty collecting payroll taxes and turn them over to the IRS? Are you a TEFRA or FUTA entity? That is a true tax class 4 or 8, NOT 2.

gdude continues:

Tax Court is a joke as evidenced by PM's [Patrick Mooney's] case and friends that I know who have been. Tax Court is for "taxpayers", and I do not recommend petitioning it.

I've seen lawyers and judges take their [sic] words , twist them, throw them out, and put what they want on the record!
Like "petitioner maintains that his wages are not taxable".....now do you think any one here would say that? "Petitioner is advancing frivolous arguments".....of course they never say what is frivolous...just like your return.....BECAUSE IT IS NOT.
I've seen judges testify for the Respondent, I've seen judges go out of their way to help a lawyer that is in trouble.

BUT,even if you have solid evidence that proves your case, they will do all they can to ignore it and push you into Appeals Court. The Tax Court has like a 95% success rate ( crooked lawyers and judges help) of course they never publish the few that do win. It is a rigged, crooked game folks! The enemy is a ruthless liar that does not play by the rules or even their own laws.

User "Victoria" chimes in:

I just want to give my opinion..

You petitioned "tax court" -- the deal is over for you.
You effectively gave them jurisdiction over you - a private citizen - by requesting this establishment grant you relief - or explain to you the difference between taxpayer and non-taxpayer....

Thank you, Victoria. Now sit down.

Now, BEEKLO is getting frustrated:

So basically ignore everything in CTC? Yeah..right! Far as I'm concerned you might be that IRS atty. Thanks.

Then, "gdude" writes:

No, she is correct.

Since Tax Court is for "taxpayers" you are considered one and any money earned is considered Taxable income, even if it wasn't.... All because you gave them jurisdiction by petitioning them!

Several people I know have just now come to this conclusion after being raked over the coals by TC.... Live and learn.

Now IMHO, I think the only way you are going to get through TC is to find irregularities in your IMF and other transcripts that they use against you. Most of these files contain tons of fraudulent info.

BEEKLO is now showing his frustration even more:

Ok. Why are either of you on this site? What CTC teaches is totally contrary to what you are saying to me. Tax Court is for tax disputes. Thanks again.

Now "oldhawaiiscott" puts his 2 cents in:

Beeklo,

I am going to offer my two cents worth. Tax Court is the first step that the IRS takes in collecting taxes, after their letters, NOD's, liens, etc.

The others are offering you advice that I strongly recommend you explore. If you alone, set yourself up for tax court, YOU will be disappointed in the results..

The Tax Court is just an administrative body of the IRS, kinda like the taxpayer assistance group(yeah right).

I wish I had a nickel for every time one of these wackadoosters says that the Tax Court is part of the IRS.

"Oldhawaiiscott" forges onward:

If you feel that you are a taxpayer, then go to court.
If you feel that you are by constitutional lay/rights, a non-taxpayer then please explore other aspects of fighting Auntie IRS...

Pete Hendrickson's pathways of resistance, offered in CTC, have the IRS providing as many ways as they can to overcome people who follow JUST those pathways. In my opinion one of the reasons for the dramatic increase in the number of "frivolous" letters that the IRS is sending out..

I would advise you to contact LegalBear, Dave Miner, and others if you choose to try to assault IRS via taxcourt strategies..

BEEKLO says he's listening:

I'm listening. Then how is one to dispute Fed tax liens, frivolous penalties, liens, levies, etc.. Just bend-over and pay? I see a lot of "white flags" here. Please tell me I'm wrong.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 151f#27569

Bend over, dude. That works about as well as anything your compatriots at lost horizons can suggest.

[Nikki]

Actually, avoiding Tax Court is probably a good idea for these lunatics.

At least, it eliminates the risk of them getting hit with even more sanctions.

Instead, they can just proceed immediately into the collection process (and possibly civil court regarding their house).

Still, they might come out ahead $25,000

[Quixote]

Justinprime seems to be backsliding. Mrs. Prime has her work cut out for her.

(I've been away for a while, postponing filing an incorrect return until last night)

I called the IRS today because I was having trouble filling out the 1040X I was told to file by an IRS woman in the auditing dept. I spoke with a very nice gentleman who informed me that I did not need to file a 1040X because my original filing was never processed. Indeed, it is unprocessable. I would assume because I put "0" for ALL income lines, not just the relevant one, claimed my daughter as well. So, what I am wondering is, what do we know about what makes something unprocessable?

All I need to do is file a new 1040... however, obviously the new 1040 only has to be a truthful reflection of our earnings. I don't think we'll be going this route, but I want to find out some info anyway. I have to refile within 30 days of April 25.

Anecdotally, I later on tried chatting up the gentleman, asked him his thoughts and he tried to corner me into first admitting what "type of income" I made, second, what type of earner I am, an "employee" or private contractor, third, what type of "wages" i received. I finally told him, "I received money for working which is completely out of the jurisdiction of the federal government." He stopped trying to corner me and put an end to it.

[Pottapaug1938]

What's the over/under on how many days it will take for Mrs. Prime to file for divorce?

[wserra]

he tried to corner me

Actually, doofus, the poor guy was in all likelihood trying to help you. It's kinda sad that you can't tell the difference.

He stopped trying to corner me and put an end to it

when he realized that trying to help was completely pointless.

[LPC]

Anecdotally, I later on tried chatting up the gentleman, asked him his thoughts and he tried to corner me into first admitting what "type of income" I made, second, what type of earner I am, an "employee" or private contractor, third, what type of "wages" i received. I finally told him, "I received money for working which is completely out of the jurisdiction of the federal government." He stopped trying to corner me and put an end to it.

Telling him "Refused for cause" or "Accepted for value" would also have worked equally well.

[Parvati]

Telling him "Refused for cause" or "Accepted for value" would also have worked equally well.

One wonders how these people would react if the IRS sent their "educated" returns back to them with "Refused for Cause" or similar stamped on it in big, red letters. They'd probably have a fit and flail about it being meaningless.

[Pottapaug1938]

Telling him "Refused for cause" or "Accepted for value" would also have worked equally well.

One wonders how these people would react if the IRS sent their "educated" returns back to them with "Refused for Cause" or similar stamped on it in big, red letters. They'd probably have a fit and flail about it being meaningless.

They should also add a demand for payment of all taxes owed, to be paid only in gold, silver or redeemed lawful money.