Victory, CTC-Style

[Dr. Caligari]

On LostHorizons, CTC warior "macwildstar" announces his great victory over the IRS:

Since I have no income (even by their definition) for 2010, I have nothing to file for. They got me beat. I'm living at the veterans home, on taxpayer dollars. I own nothing, lost everything. They won, but I am not paying them one more damm dime. I'm done being an economic slave to them.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that his words "they got me beat" belies his claim of victory, just a tad.... He reminds me of a cartoon I saw once in which a naked man is standing on the street, as muggers run away with everything he'd had on him just shortly before, and the man says to the people gawking, "look at those muggers running away from me. They must be terrified of me!"

[Dr. Caligari]

I find it particularly ironic that, having lost everything in the course of his fight not to pay taxes, he now shamelessly admits to living "on taxpayer dollars."

[webhick]

I find it particularly ironic that, having lost everything in the course of his fight not to pay taxes, he now shamelessly admits to living "on taxpayer dollars."

From Economic Slave to Taxpayer Leach* in Twelve Easy Steps.

*I'm not saying that people in the VA are leaches, I'm just making a point. And arguably he's not technically a leach since (last I checked) to get into the VA you had to have served in the military.

[The Observer]

*I'm not saying that people in the VA are leaches, I'm just making a point. And arguably he's not technically a leach since (last I checked) to get into the VA you had to have served in the military.

He may not be a leach, but he is definitely a leech. Remember, he had to work very hard at getting reduced to this state; his military service should not be seen as a justification for doing what he is doing now. There are plenty of veterans out there who are leading lives based on observance of the tax laws and not needing the government to provide for them.

[Pottapaug1938]

On LostHorizons, CTC warior "macwildstar" announces his great victory over the IRS:

Since I have no income (even by their definition) for 2010, I have nothing to file for. They got me beat. I'm living at the veterans home, on taxpayer dollars. I own nothing, lost everything. They won, but I am not paying them one more damm dime. I'm done being an economic slave to them.

Wow. He's done with "being an economic slave to them"; but now he has no assets except what "they" allow him to have, and he lives in circumstances which "they" prescribe. He has to obey "their" rules in his veterans' home.

Gee -- here I was, living in a nice house with my wife, enjoying a comfortable income and knowing that we have sizable assets put away for our retirement, and I didn't realize how wonderful it was to win a CtC-inspired victory like this buffoon -- I mean genius.

[Demosthenes]

I have eleven years of Macwildstar posts.

Here's one from 2005 from the HD o' Demo:

"Chuck" is Chuck Conces.

Date: February 12, 2005 11:16:27 AM EST

MacWildstar wrote:

WOW, and LMAO. I went to an IRS meeting with Chuck and Bill today, at the Grand Rapids
Office of the IRS.

Man, I tell ya these folks are on the run. From the get go, they made it clear this was their interview, but Chuck really ran it. He put 2 irs agents on notice, one was a mere agent, and another was a revenue officer – neither which has any authority by law to demand he answer questions.

Some unspecified IRS goon out of Ogden Utah, sent a series of questions to the GR office. Mr. Lee had to do the interview, and he screwed it up royally.

First he did not read the stuff chuck sent him, so he was unprepared.

Second his attitude was one of someone who was investigating a business, and if it was a business promoting what the IRS calls an Illegal tax shelter.

He kept calling our members "clients" and after a while, Bill finally told him to just drop the client claim. He asked questions such as "did you ever prepare returns for anyone, does anyone in your group prepare returns for anyone", and "what is your definition of income" and that lead to a 15 min discussion because the guy didn't understand chuck’s answer that our definition of income is that which the USSC has stated income is. He also asked chuck about "promoting" the group. Again, presuming this was some kind of money making situation.

He asked about does our membership pay dues, does chuck write responses for the members, has he attended any tax related seminars, is he a CPA or other trained professional, etc..

Chuck asked for their ID numbers and pocket commissions, and neither had them on their person, but Mr. Lee went and got his, it had an A on it. Non-enforcement. The letter sent to Mr. Lee was written for him by some woman over in Ogden Utah and chuck put Lee on notice that the woman was using his (lees) name while committing the crime of fraud, since the letter did not contain her IRS ID number, and the signature was not Lee's, but rather it was that IRS ladys forgery of Lees signature.

Form 23C was also mentioned, and they said that they are no longer used, but Bill brought up the fact that as recent as 1991, the courts said the forms had to be present as they were the foundation of all the IRS does.

A lot of things were covered, from chucks 23 page report, to a report of a continual levy after the amount has been paid in full, leaving a person nearly homeless as the result. Chuck put the IRS agents on notice to look into it, and correct it or face accessory charges.

Needless to day, Lawman just survived a direct attack by the IRS. Lets see what else they (the IRS ) does.

[Demosthenes]

And another from 2000.

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:48:55 -0400

Subject: TeaParty - Got 'em again!

Man, I tell ya, I about went on a rampage today, but I kept my cool and
made an ass out of a lawyer, while at the same time showed my boss that I
am not "just another tax protester."

Seems the guy's lawyer got wind of my filing exempt, and advised the boss
to start withholding. He was in the office at the time, so I was called
in, and there I went on the attack.

I asked him what section of subtitle A, made me liable? He said the law
said that the company had to withhold. So I went out to my car and took
out the copy of the IRC I had there, (Year 1998) and handed it to him and
said, "show me." Then I asked him, what law compelled a company to
withhold INCASE of a liablity?

I then asked him what law could compell me to take an oath of perjury as
a condition to being in compliance of the law, without violating my
rights as protected by the US Constitution as well as the Michigan
Constitution. No answer. So I showed him IRC 6055, then 7206 and since
7206 is based on belief, I asked him how can he insist that I commit a
felony, in order for me to be in compliance with the law? Again no
response.

I showed him the section of law covering withholding certificates, and
the definitions contained within that chapter. I asked him if it was his
legal opinion, (and could I get it in writting with a verified signature
claiming it was true to the best of his knowledge) that I was the
employee as defined, and that the company I worked for was the employer
as defined. He refused. I offered to pay for his time, in cash, right
then and there. Again he refused.

Then I asked him "If there is no law requiring that I be able to read,
write, and do math, then how can I be convicted of failing to file any
paperwork?" again no answer.. He sat there with a dumbarse look on his
face. My boss was becomming impressed. Well, I said, you claimed to the
boss that I cannot file exempt. If I cannot, then who can? No answer.

I then asked him by what legal authority can he or the IRS compell the
company to take part of my property and give it to a 3rd party without a
court order, without violating our contract, AND without committing
Conversion.

He said the law said the company was required to and it had to be in
compliance with the law. And that I had no contract with the company..
Then I spent 5 mins explaining basic contracts to him, (which he already
should have known) and Proved that I indeed had a contract with the
company. (verbal contract)

I asked him if he was telling the company that they were a withholding
agent? he said they were.. So I showed him the definition found at 7701,
and asked him if it was his position, (and was he telling the company)
that I was a foriegn entity, pursuant to 1441-1446? (which I showed him)
and he just sat there dumbfounded. The boss took a closer look at the
law.

I then went on and told him that as a lawyer, he sucked. THIS law, as
well as the other 49 titles are NOT written for lawyers and judges alone,
I stated, but for the general public. THIS is where we get our
information about the laws of this great nation. HERE is were we read to
find out what the law is.. If I a common man cannot find the answers
here, then it is clear that I am not the subject of the law. Lower court
case law is nothing. Its confusing. One circut will rule one way the next
curcut court will rule just the exact oppisit.. Which one is correct?
untill the US Supreme court rules on it, the issue is in doubt. But when
the USSC has ruled, its opinion stands. And if a man cannot read the law
and understand it, having to turn to court decisions to be able to come
to a proper comprehension of the law, then the law should be, and IS void
for vagueness according to the court decisions.

But you had income, he says.. Prove it I say, and mister, I am going to
tear apart everything you suggest as proof. You cannot prove reciept of
taxable income or any other kind of income. Income is not the same as
every thing that comes in..

He said I worked, got paid, and the pay was income. I said what is the
definition of income. He quoted blacks law dictionary. (the second time I
have had a lawyer do that in recent months). I told him Blacks law does
not have legal standing in law. And then quoted Conner v. United States,
where the court said, "Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must
have the essential feature of gain to the recipient."
He (the lawyer) said that my pay was a gain, since it cost me nothing.
So I quoted Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., where the court said, ". . .
(I)ncome may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or
from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of
capital. . . . And that definition has been adhered to and applied
repeatedly." And I asked him, what was the profit, and what is the
capital that I can re-invest to produce more profit? he said my time..
AH.. got him!!! Time is FINITE for Humans, and we have only so much of
it, once used, it is gone forever.. Thus it cannot be re-invested as can
capital.

I then found a copy of my "zero labor" argument and presented it to him
and the boss. The boss was VERY impressed at this time.. The lawyer was
claiming I was going to end up in jail.. For what I asked? For standing
up for my rights to keep my property? Screw you you ignorant shyster! I
will be filing a complaint with the bar association aginst you for
malpractice if you continue to give the company false and inaccurate
information.

He sat there and didn't make a sound. I then told them both that the
company can even hire me and pay me without withholding of any kind, and
without my having a TIN or SSN. Impossible he (the lawyer) said.. well, I
showed him the law and the sections that tell what to do when a company
is unable to obtain the desired information. The company is protected BY
LAW if it follows those instructions.. That way all the company has to do
is pay me each week, and forget about the extra hours of manpower to keep
the governments books, free of charge. The boss didn't even know such
sections (Of the law) existed!

Well, the lawyer said try it.. So I said, "what good is the written law
if people like you, who claim to be in the legal profession, are
unwilling to accept the plain black and white writting of the law
itself?"

Well I said I wasted enough of my time with him, and went back to work..
later my boss told me that I really shook the guy up, and my agressive
tone and "slam dunk'ing" aittude really got the guy in a frazzzle..
Apparently he advised the boss to fire me before my 90 days probation
period is up, but he told me he wants me to continue and if successfull,
to show others how to do it.. Thats when I told him its been over 7 years
since I filed or paid a dime to the IRS.

Guess who I am having dinner with, at a very expensive resturant,
tomorrow night? The boss and his wife.

Mack Wildstar.

[LPC]

Since I have no income (even by their definition) for 2010, I have nothing to file for. They got me beat. I'm living at the veterans home, on taxpayer dollars. I own nothing, lost everything. They won, but I am not paying them one more damm dime. I'm done being an economic slave to them.

That statement exemplifies very well the entire "tax honesty movement": Angry, irrational, self-destructive, and alone.

[Judge Roy Bean]

They are also creative story-tellers with a goal of making themselves appear to have won when the facts are most often that they had their *ss handed to them. But who wants to admit that? Better to make up a story and keep your delusion going.

[grixit]

Now if ever someone were to write a book about the tp movement, and there are occasional rumors that someone might be, a series of extracts over the years, with names redacted of course, would make an excellent section. It could be titled "A Truth Pilgrim's Progress".