Bulten is disappointed in Quatloos

[silversopp]

You are never going to convince Bulten that he owes taxes. And, it is not about the truth, honesty, or the law. It is about greed.

I disagree. Bulten posted the forms he filed, and with his income of under $10,000, I believe he ended up saving about $700 using CtC.

I don't think it's about greed in Bulten's case, I think it's more of a cult thing. He holds a lot of strange beliefs which dictate his strange behavior. He has a guru/cult leader that he looks up to with godlike reverance.

He'd believe that the sun circles around the earth if Pete said so even if there was no money to be made from the belief.

[buck09]

You are never going to convince Bulten that he owes taxes. And, it is not about the truth, honesty, or the law. It is about greed.

Bingo. I thought it was interesting that he had no response when I asked him to have his pastor read all of his posts here. Knowing the general caliber of the pastorate in my denomination, I suspect he would have reached the same conclusion fairly quickly. At that point he would have some real-world accountability, something I don't think he's too interested in.

[Joey Smith]

Where is Bulten anyhow? I keep waiting for him to identify the one (1) issue that he thinks might have the best chance on appeal.

It is probably well beyond his comprehension and cult-like belief set to realize that there simply is not a single issue in Pete's brief that is worth wasting time discussing, much less giving grounds to reverse. Of course, when Pete gets slammed on all counts and without a single dissent (the correct result), he'll just mumble something about "the courts being crooked" and go on to his next guru and equally wrong theory.

[grammarian44]

Where is Bulten anyhow?

He has been viewing posts today. I've noticed that at least twice he has been logged in, just in the last few hours. It's not as if he is "working" or otherwise unavailable.

Maybe he's composing a legal manifesto that documents the gravity of Pete's arguments (i.e., further repetition of arguments already made).

[webhick]

Where is Bulten anyhow?

He has been viewing posts today. I've noticed that at least twice he has been logged in, just in the last few hours. It's not as if he is "working" or otherwise unavailable.

He made a comment some posts back about having clearance on something. When we queried his microchip to determine what clearance he has, we were greeted with a long list of crimes against the Illuminati. Unfortunately, I can't reveal what most of those crimes are (and I really want to because they're really juicy) - but we've now had to add "Impersonating a Member of the Illuminati", "Intentionally Misstating Clearance Levels", and "Making Me Miss Today's Visit from the Male Stripper" to the list.

So, we apprehended John and crammed him into a 2x2 room off my office pending spork poking... I mean "questioning". Once we're done poking him with sporks...I mean "questioning" him, he'll be brought to tapioca endurance room. Then we're just going to release him and watch him squirm under surveillance for a number of years.

I know...I know...we should prosecute him for those crimes. But the thing is about the Illuminati...we have a really short attention span and we like to party down and have fun. Prosecuting him would be tremendously boring and then we'd have to convict and then he have to wipe his memory and plant him in the Penguin Prison Colony and Knock-You-On-Your-Ass Brewery of Antarctica. And the Penguins are quite militant about not letting *anyone* into the area. Entire scientific expeditions have been lost to them. So as you can see, if we were to really put him on trial we would lose all potential enjoyment from his antics.

[Joey Smith]

Just sort of funny ... Bulten complains on LostHeads about Quatloos not taking Pete's appeal seriously ... we point out that there is nothing in Pete's brief that deserves to be taken seriously ... Bulten refuses to come up with even a single issue worth arguing in Pete's appeal.

[Dr. Caligari]

But to assuage your concerns, let's take Pete's arguments point-by-point. Give us what you think is Pete's single best argument for reversal and we can discuss that and then move on to any others that you believe might have merit.

....(crickets)....

[webhick]

Just sort of funny ... Bulten complains on LostHeads about Quatloos not taking Pete's appeal seriously ... we point out that there is nothing in Pete's brief that deserves to be taken seriously ... Bulten refuses to come up with even a single issue worth arguing in Pete's appeal.

He probably cares about responding just as much as we did when it first came out.

[Paul]

The Doctor (or his crickets) has spoken. Go ahead and close the thread.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Just sort of funny ... Bulten complains on LostHeads about Quatloos not taking Pete's appeal seriously ... we point out that there is nothing in Pete's brief that deserves to be taken seriously ... Bulten refuses to come up with even a single issue worth arguing in Pete's appeal.

And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...

[LPC]

Where is Bulten anyhow? I keep waiting for him to identify the one (1) issue that he thinks might have the best chance on appeal.

And I keep waiting for him to burst into spontaneous combustion.

I think that I'll stop waiting before you stop waiting.

[Famspear]

Joey Smith wrote:

Just sort of funny ... Bulten complains on LostHeads about Quatloos not taking Pete's appeal seriously ... we point out that there is nothing in Pete's brief that deserves to be taken seriously ... Bulten refuses to come up with even a single issue worth arguing in Pete's appeal.

Hmmm. Not taking the appeal seriously, seriously, seriously (sound of pages flipping) . . . SERIOUSLY

Ahhh......

frivolous (adj) – “of little weight or importance . . . lacking in SERIOUSNESS . . . irresponsibly self-indulgent ”. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 461 (G.&C. Merriam Co., 8th ed. 1976) (emphasis added).

frivolous (adj) – “of little value or importance . . . trifling; trivial . . . not properly SERIOUS or sensible”. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 560 (World Publishing Co., 2d Coll. Ed. 1970) (emphasis added).

frivolous (adj) – “unworthy of SERIOUS attention”. American Heritage Dictionary, p. 535 (Houghton Mifflin Co., 2d Coll. Ed. 1985) (emphasis added).

[Joey Smith]

I think that from Mr. Bulten's silence that we can safely infer that even he agrees that Pete has not presented even a single meritorious issue on appeal. Now, there is nothing left to do on this issue but sit back and await the inevitable "Affirmed".

[John J. Bulten]

Webhick was correct about some of the reasons for my past and future absence, but it wasn't tapioca, it was smelt pudding.

Also, I didn't think it necessary to repeat or retype Pete's arguments. Why don't you start with #1 on its own merits, as enunciated by Pete in the link I posted, and when you're done debunking that, assume that I wish to proceed with #2, and so forth (without of course my making any admissions as to which arguments are best)? I expect to have a busy weekend this 7/7/7, so please go ahead and debunk all ten seriatim, with the presumable welter of applicable case law. Oh, wait, you could've done this without my response. Now I see what the crickets are for. Shalom.

[Imalawman]

Webhick was correct about some of the reasons for my past and future absence, but it wasn't tapioca, it was smelt pudding.

Also, I didn't think it necessary to repeat or retype Pete's arguments. Why don't you start with #1 on its own merits, as enunciated by Pete in the link I posted, and when you're done debunking that, assume that I wish to proceed with #2, and so forth (without of course my making any admissions as to which arguments are best)? I expect to have a busy weekend this 7/7/7, so please go ahead and debunk all ten seriatim, with the presumable welter of applicable case law. Oh, wait, you could've done this without my response. Now I see what the crickets are for. Shalom.

So you admit you can't point out the best argument? Still crickets waiting for you to point out the best one - that was the deal. Our response is as follows until you provide what you think is the best argument.

Response to all points made by Pete H. in his brief - Absurd, Ridiculous, and Specious. I think I speak for all of Quatloos.

[Famspear]

John J. Bulten wrote:

I expect to have a busy weekend this 7/7/7, so please go ahead and debunk all ten seriatim, with the presumable welter of applicable case law

Wait a minute, that doesn't seem fair. I mean, Pete went to all the trouble to concoct a huge document full of his own idiosyncratic nonsense about tax law -- and then a bunch of Quatloos people are just gonna come along and destroy Pete's arguments through the underhanded, low-down, sneaky, tactic of actually citing applicable CASE LAW???? I mean, let's show Pete a little RESPECT, folks.

[LPC]

Why don't you start with #1 on its own merits,

He picked #1.

The first issue listed by Hendrickson in his brief is "The District Court erred by not immediately dismissing the complaint due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."

But that's silly.

26 U.S.C. 7405 gives the United States the right to recover erroneous refunds by a civil action, and 26 U.S.C. 7402(a) gives the district courts of the United States, at the instance of the United States, jurisdiction "to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws."

28 U.S.C. 1340 gives district court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal internal reUnited States.
venue laws.

28 U.S.C. 1345 gives district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions brought by the United States.

And all of these statutes were cited in the complaint filed by the United States.

Hendrickson doesn't even mention these statutes, but instead claims that his own tax return is "final" cannot be contradicted, which is both wrong and demonstrates that Hendrickson does not even understand the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction.

If that's Hendrickson's best argument, then the United States does not even need to file a brief, because the Court of Appeals will be dismissing the appeal summarily.

[Dr. Caligari]

The first issue listed by Hendrickson in his brief is "The District Court erred by not immediately dismissing the complaint due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."

But that's silly.

26 U.S.C. 7405 gives the United States the right to recover erroneous refunds by a civil action, and 26 U.S.C. 7402(a) gives the district courts of the United States, at the instance of the United States, jurisdiction "to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws."

28 U.S.C. 1340 gives district court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal internal reUnited States.
venue laws.

28 U.S.C. 1345 gives district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions brought by the United States.

And all of these statutes were cited in the complaint filed by the United States.

...and I cited these statutes over at LostHorizons. Bulten hasn't rebutted them there either.

[Quixote]

#2 "The District Court erred by not dismissing the complaint immediately due to plaintiff/appellee's lack of standing and/or its failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted."

The United States (and only the United States) has standing to sue under IRC §7405(b). The factual basis of a claim under 7405 is the issuance of an erroneous refund. Hendrickson did not dispute that the US alleged that the IRS had issued a refund in error. His argument was identical to that he made in opposition to jurisdiction, that the refund he received was based on the tax liability shown on his return, and that, therefore, the refund was not erroneous.

Even if Hendrickson were correct, that would only mean the US would not prevail, not that it lacked standing or failed to state a claim.

[Quixote]

#3 "The District Court erred by not dismissing the complaint immediately due to under provisions of the Declaratory Act."

Huh? Did the US request a declaratory judgment? PH, as is his custom, has selectively cited from BOB JONES UNIV. v. SIMON to make it appear that the SC has stated that an injunction always requires a declaratory judgment. Had he read on to the end of the paragraph, he would have found "Nor need we decide whether any action for an injunction is of necessity a request for a declaration of rights that triggers the terms of the Declaratory Judgment Act." BOB JONES UNIV. v. SIMON, 416 U.S. 725, 733. I'm sure it was just an oversight.