Macwildstar shuts up Larry Williams once and for all

[Quixote]

Or not.

Although his post is a bit vague it appears that CTC Worrier macwildstar has received e-mails from "Larry Williams" containing unpleasant truths about the income tax.

Ok, thanks to all who replied.. after talking with larry via email, I now know hes just another government shill..

Here is what I sent to him (and my E-group on yahoo) yesterday to shut him up once and for all.

[needlessly long combination of gibberish and bald faced lies]

That's is what its all about folks.. Plain and simple.

Why is it that a tax denier's "plain and simple" explanation as to why he is not liable for the federal income tax is always 4 to 5 times longer than a complete technical explanation as to why he is liable for the tax?

[The Observer]

I don't know, but I am definitely worried about this Larry Williams guy. Who appointed him to defend the tax conspiracy? It was obvious a glaring error on his part to think that he should discuss "truths" with this TP. How can you have a conspiracy with truth involved? Doesn't he realize that he should have been sharing lies, bald-faced lies, so these TPs could be deceived and lured back into the system? Did he even try to share a fib like the 16th Amendment authorizes the income tax system? Or the lie that Section 1 of the IRC makes people liable for the income tax? Did Larry even try to con the TPs into thinking that tax levies can be issued without a court warrant?

Instead, we get the typical rookie making the typical mistake. We need to muzzle this Larry Williams guy and send over a pro like Famspear, who could shut up macwildstar by merely reciting a limerick.

[Famspear]

Yeah, macwildstar is an unhappy camper. I had emailed him back on Friday October 26th to clue him in about the Paperwork Reduction Act/OMB control number court decisions, of which he was completely unaware. (Macwildstar's cluelessness on this topic had been mentioned in a thread here at Quatloos.)

For a while, there was no response. But boy, once macwildstar got around to it, he went crazy and the wheels seemed to come off.



He finally responded around last Friday, and we started a back and forth. When I provided court cases, etc., that refuted his nonsense, he got upset.

Then, on Saturday night, a bozo named "Mike Vanhooser" (who apparently obtained my "lawfulman at gmail dot com" email address from macwildstar) began emailing me. Vanhooser not only demanded that I respond to his questions, he demanded that I give the response in some unnamed internet "forum," so I lambasted him as well.

Vanhooser and macwildstar apparently had been posting at the same tax protester forum somewhere. Vanhooser demanded that I respond at the mysterious, unnamed "forum", but neither macwildstar nor Vanhooser bothered to come out and say specifically where this supposed internet forum was located.

.....Not the brightest bulbs on the tree.



Vanhooser then made the typical mistake of copying and pasting one of those classic lists of the usual court cases that tax protesters love to cite, including Merchants' Loan and -- unfortunately for Vanhooser's overblown ego as it turned out -- the infamous "quote" from Lucas v. Earl that he, like many tax protesters before him, mistakenly believed was from the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than from the brief filed by the losing taxpayer in that famous case. I humiliated Vanhooser by laying out his idiocy on that one, and so far I haven't heard back from him.

Macwildstar, meanwhile, kept sending me emails, getting madder and madder as I refuted each email.

Then, low and behold, who should show up in my email "in box" over the weekend but Bob Hurt. We've had several threads here at Quatloos on Bob Hurt. It turns out that the mysterious forum at which macwildstar and Vanhooser were posting was (apparently) a forum run by Bob Hurt. Macwildstar and Vanhooser were apparently posting news of their struggles with me at the forum, and Bob Hurt sent me an email.

I say "apparently," because although I believe I later found the forum, I haven't actually tried to register there. I don't have the link with me right now, and I forget the name of the forum. As far as I can tell, an unregistered lurker there is not allowed to see the posts by the participants.

Needless to say, we have two very upset wackadoosters - macwildstar and Mike Vanhooser.

Hey guys! Welcome to REALITY! It ain't as easy as it first looked, is it fellas?

By the way, Bob Hurt was actually quite cordial in his email to me. He didn't realize that I was his old nemesis, so I was compelled to email him back and inform him that the "Larry Williams" with whom he was corresponding is "Famspear" at Quatloos.

AND WATCH OUT MACWILDSTAR! LIMERICKS COULD COME FLYIN' AT YOU AT ANY TIME!!

[Famspear]

Background: "Macwildstar" is the guy in the Veterans Hospital (or Veterans Home, I can't remember which) up in Michigan (Grand Rapids, I think) who has been suffering because the IRS has been levying on some of the benefits he would otherwise be receiving.

He's the one who posted the comment at losthorizons a few months ago:

I'm just getting back into this [Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scheme], and already its killing me.

One is tempted to feel a little sorry for the guy until one realizes that even in his latest post at losthorizons, he is lying through his teeth -- for example, by claiming that no court case has ruled that his income is taxable, etc. I have already provided him with the link to Dan Evan's tax protester dossier on Pete Hendrickson, which lists case after case, including those in which the Court specifically mention Hendrickson and "Cracking the Code."

[notorial dissent]

Well, at least you are doing it to them in pairs now, cuts down on the paperwork.

The things with which Macwildstar is most likely unfamiliar with is probably, well legion when it comes right down to it.

I think the shorter list would be the one of court cases saying that "his income is (not)taxable", since there are none.

[Gregg]

I just have to marvel at the guy who is living in a government funded home, with a government funded lifesaving medical procedure howling about how fair it is for him to have to pay income tax. Does he think those benefits are paid for with pixie dust?

[Chados]

Bob "The Lawmen" Hurt. Speaking of wackadoodles.

[Famspear]

Bob "The Lawmen" Hurt. Speaking of wackadoodles.

A long time ago, I picked my email address, "lawfulman at gmail dot com", as a sort of inside joke -- in reference to the "lawmen" group, which was apparently started by the late Chuck Conces, and sort of inherited by Bob Hurt.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I used to not believe in the undead.

[webhick]

Why is it that a tax denier's "plain and simple" explanation as to why he is not liable for the federal income tax is always 4 to 5 times longer than a complete technical explanation as to why he is liable for the tax?

Two possible explanations:

When your vocabulary limits you to four and five letter words, you need to use more of them when trying to make a point.

When your reasoning is so tortured and littered with falsehoods that compulsive liars are like, "you have problems...," then you really don't have a choice but to obfusticate it to the point where it only looks like English.

[notorial dissent]

When your reasoning is so tortured and littered with falsehoods that compulsive liars are like, "you have problems...," then you really don't have a choice but to obfusticate it to the point where it only looks like English.

What she said. I think it is generally called pretzel logic because it inevitably comes back on itself in trying to justify the unjustifiable. A good point about the "four and five letter words", and let's not get in to the three and four syllable words, that really causes confusion, particularly when they try and throw some latin in to justify their nonsense.

My theory has always been that if you can't say it in plain English, then it probably doesn't need to be said in the first place.