A Wingnut Returns (Jeffrey Maehr)

[Pottapaug1938]

You guys are killing me here! - 6 guests...

It's more like "suicide", Van Pelt. "6 guests" -- at the time you are viewing that particular thread.

Every post you make embarrasses yourself more -- only you have no sense of shame, so you'll never catch on to that.

[webhick]

You guys are killing me here! - 6 guests...

It's more like "suicide", Van Pelt. "6 guests" -- at the time you are viewing that particular thread.

Every post you make embarrasses yourself more -- only you have no sense of shame, so you'll never catch on to that.

Folks may not be aware that there are a couple factors that account for the difference in David's viewership vs ours.

• phpBB displays "Who is Online" based upon who was active on the site within the last 5 minutes. vBulletin, IIRC, uses a default of 15 minutes. This means that six minutes after you stop clicking on anything on Quatloos you would drop off the list whereas on David's site, you'd still be showing up. The default on both forums can be changed to higher or lower.
• David's site is not excluding the bots from the guest list, whereas ours does. A bot will often crawl a bit of a site using one spider and then send another one a few minutes later to crawl a different part. They typically do not crawl the site at the same time, but may do so within a minute or so of each other. Our forum doesn't count them as separate spiders, but as one bot. David's site, because the bots are not being separated, would count each spider as a separate guest.

So, all things being equal. If both sites had received:

• 4 registered users in the past five minutes
• 8 registered users in the past fifteen minutes (not including the 4 above)
• 5 spiders within the last five minutes from 3 different bots,
• 10 spiders within the last fifteen minutes (not including the 5 above)
• 6 guests within the last five minutes
• 12 guests within the last fifteen (not including the 6 above)

Our site would show: 4 registered users, [Bot1], [Bot2], [Bot3] and 6 guests.
While his site would show: 12 registered users, and 33 guests.

Funny what two little settings can do.

[wserra]

And World Nut Daily proves once again how hopelessly clueless they are by making a big deal out of SCOTUS docketing a damn cert petition. Hate to break it to you, guys, but SCOTUS receives and dockets nearly 10,000 cert petitions a year, and actually hears about 100.

As Dan says, if they conference Maehr's petition Friday, they'll docket the "cert. denied" on Monday. Bet WND doesn't write about that.

[Cpt Banjo]

This idiot's motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been denied, and he was given until November 19 to pay the filing fee and submit a proper petition.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 2-6169.htm

[LPC]

This idiot's motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been denied, and he was given until November 19 to pay the filing fee and submit a proper petition.

Perusing the weekly orders, I saw something recently that I thought was funny, and that this wingnut might be able to duplicate.

It was an order allowing a petition for reconsideration of a denial to proceed in forma pauperis, and then denying the petition for cert.

Now, that might not be too weird or too funny, but think about what it means. The nutjob files a petition for certiorari and a petition for leave to file in forma pauperis, and the Supremes deny the petition to file in forma pauperis, giving the nutjob some time to pay the filing fee. Rather than pay the filing fee, the nutjob petitions for reconsideration of the denial of in forma pauperis. Wishing to get rid of nutjob, the Supremes allow the petition for reconsideration, essentially granting the right to file the petition for certiorari without paying the filing fee, but then deny the petition for certiorari.

It reminds me of Stevens's dissent from an order enjoining future filings by a nutjob without permission. It's easier to deny petitions for cert than to enforce orders requiring permission to file petitions. Similarly, it's easier to deny cert than to reconsider petitions to reconsider denial of in forma pauperis.

[wserra]

Similarly, it's easier to deny cert than to reconsider petitions to reconsider denial of in forma pauperis.

Maybe so, but the motion to reconsider the denial of IFP is down for the Conference Dec. 7, and his time to pay and file (if IFP denied) has been extended to February 18, 2013.

I bet that the fact that it will be very hard for Wingnut to claim denial of due process isn't gonna stop him.

[LPC]

Petition for certiorari filed. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 12-6169 (9/11/2012).

New docket entry for Oct 4 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.

Which means we can look for "cert. den." on October 29.

There was a delay. Cert. was denied yesterday, March 18.

Foundation for Truth in Law is not yet up and running, pending funding and hiring of our Constitutional attorneys and legal experts.

Too bad Cryer has gone to his reward. He'd have been perfect for this gig.

Close. Maehr has been stealing from him. See http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/PDF/ ... mplete.pdf

[Burnaby49]

This idiot's motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been denied, and he was given until November 19 to pay the filing fee and submit a proper petition.

Perusing the weekly orders, I saw something recently that I thought was funny, and that this wingnut might be able to duplicate.

It was an order allowing a petition for reconsideration of a denial to proceed in forma pauperis, and then denying the petition for cert.

Now, that might not be too weird or too funny, but think about what it means. The nutjob files a petition for certiorari and a petition for leave to file in forma pauperis, and the Supremes deny the petition to file in forma pauperis, giving the nutjob some time to pay the filing fee. Rather than pay the filing fee, the nutjob petitions for reconsideration of the denial of in forma pauperis. Wishing to get rid of nutjob, the Supremes allow the petition for reconsideration, essentially granting the right to file the petition for certiorari without paying the filing fee, but then deny the petition for certiorari.

Happens here in Canada from time to time. Here you make application for Leave to Appeal. If it's granted they will hear the case. Denied, you're out. There is a time limit between the decision you're appealing being rendered and when you can apply for leave. Quite generous but still people sometimes fester for years about the injustice of their case before deciding to request leave from the Supremes. Instead of denying leave because it is out of time they often state that the application could be denied because it is out of time but it is irrelevant because leave would have been denied even if the application had been timely.

[.]

Nut-job: I'm poor, let me file!

SC: Nope. Pay up.

Nut-job: Really, I'm poor, I must be heard!

SC: OK, we'll believe you just long enough to blow you out of the water, since you won't take a hint.

[fortinbras]

That is essentially what happens when a conspicuously flakey case is submitted without the fee. One reason the judges do this is a mercy to the wingnut, who most likely doesn't have two coins to rub together, and a mercy to the court staff, so they don't see this craziness again. When this happens it's a pretty strong sign that the suit was obviously and undeniably hopeless and beyond repair.

[bobhurt]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/businessman- ... cuting-me/

I don't imagine the IRS actually fears anyone, but World Net Daily heads its article "IRS actually fears man who doesn't file taxes." They might have thus put this "I'm not a tax protestor" man, Jeff Maehr, in the limelight.

According to the article, the IRS refuses to file criminal charges against him for willful failure to file because he has a paper trail proving he doesn't willfully fail, because he believes he doesn't owe those particular taxes.

I guess we''ll see whether the IRS fears him or not. Personally, I hope they do, now that WND has made him "high-profile."

[fortinbras]

The article says that Maehr's argument is that wages & salaries are not taxable income. This specific argument has been raised and crushed so many times that it is now considered "sanction bait" for wasting the court's time. Not a chance of this succeeding.

If anyone fears Jeff Maehr it may have something to do with his personal hygiene.

[wserra]

World Net Daily heads its article "IRS actually fears man who doesn't file taxes."

WorldNutDaily, as we discussed above, has confirmed its "completely legally clueless" status by making a big deal out of the Supreme Court's docketing Maehr's cert petition - just as it does with 10,000 other cases every year - and then failing to report the cert denial. Assuming that anything it writes is accurate - an assumption that is quite likely unwarranted - Maehr's position is that wages are not income. As fortinbras says, that dog has proven unable to hunt so many times that it is officially frivolous.

I merged bobhurt's new thread from the Promoters and High Profile TP forum into this existing one. Maehr is simply yet another penny-ante tax cheat, and WND is flogging one of its many dead horses.

[AndyK]

FWIW:

Maehr's tax court case can be viewed at the Tax Court's Docket Inquiry function (Case 010758-11) and he's the only Maehr on file there.

The T.C. decision is viewable online

In summary; dismissed for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted, appealed to U.S.C.A. 10th Cir which affirmed.

for 2003, there is a $35,474 deficiency in income tax, an $7,981.63 section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax, a $915.28 section 6654 addition to tax;

for 2004, there is a $38,928 deficiency in income tax, an $8,758.80 section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax, a $1,115.56 section 6654 addition to tax;

for 2005, there is a $34,538 deficiency in income tax, a $7,771.053 section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax, a $1,385.37 section 6654 addition to tax;

for 2006, there is a $28,181 deficiency in income tax, a $6,340.73 section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax, that petitioner is liable for a $1,333.65 section 6654addition to tax.

Approximately $172,000 PLUS 6651(a)(2) taxes to be computed for all four years PLUS accrued interest on all amounts until paid.

[fortinbras]

Thanks for the Tax Court decision, which is not on Lexis nor WestLaw.

Maehr's Supreme Court petition was from Jeffrey Thomas Maehr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (10th Cir., May 17, 2012) 480 Fed.Appx 921, 109 AFTR2d 2145, 2012 USTC ¶ 50348. Certiorari denied, March 18, 2013, _US_, 133 S.Ct 1579, 185 L.Ed.2d 583.

In his 10th Circuit appeal from the Tax Court decision, Maehr trotted out -- no, he dragged out because all those horses are very dead -- that the Internal Revenue Code has no clout because not enacted into positive law, the IRS is not a real govt agency, wages are not taxable income, the Tax Return form 1040 is illegitimate because not imprinted with an OMB number, the 16th Amendment does not authorize taxing the incomes of citizens "of the individual states", and he even suggested that paying taxes was against his religion.

You'll never guess how the 10th Circuit reacted to these arguments (here's a small hint: the phrases "lacking in legal merit" and "patently frivolous" occur more than once).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 3470557190

[notorial dissent]

According to the article, the IRS refuses to file criminal charges against him for willful failure to file because he has a paper trail proving he doesn't willfully fail, because he believes he doesn't owe those particular taxes.

More like he is such an insignificance, that no one has noticed they mean. He's just as untouchable and as much a threat as Prattlin' Pete and Barkin' Larkin were, which is to say exactly none. Both of whom ended up in jail for all their untouchableness and the fear and terror they generated.

What I suspect WND has now managed to do is take a fairly insignificant player and put a nice florescent target on his back that some trainee will get to use to learn how to go after the real ones who will take a little effort, since it seems WND and Maehr have so generously documented his efforts, it will save the IRS a lot of back work lining up his prosecution.

If the IRS was feeling particular beneficent, they could always give WND a special award for helping them by spotlighting tax cheats.

[AndyK]

The IRS wheels spin slowly, but inexorably.

Maehr exhausted his last appeal just a few days ago.

Next will come the collection notices. Maehr will, undoubtedly, take advantage of every administrative process (CDP hearing, etc) and then appeal those results to Tax Court and upwards.

Except for the interest clock running, he probably has another two years before someone starts selling his assets. Even then, there are court options available to challenge the sale.

With any luck, he'll die and leave all the issues to his executor.

[notorial dissent]

So, in other words, he wasn't untouchable, the IRS wasn't terrified of him, and WND, surprise, got it wrong. Imagine that!!!

[countyguard]

Well... it amazes me that there is such a resistance to anyone challenging the IRS, especially where they have not provided any evidence that what this guy says is NOT true. Are all the commentators fearful that it might be true? Why would name-calling and sucking up to the courts ignorance be presented rather than the evidence? This really makes me wonder if Americans aren't really comfortable with their slavery. I'm willing to admit it isn't something most of us have ever faced, but do we condemn a guy for presenting a defense before the defense is even heard? Isn't that like fascism and tyranny being supported? Is this how we would want to be treated in defending ourselves? I would LOVE to see Quatloos readers take the stand and provide the evidence against his Petition where the courts obviously did NOT. I'm going to present it to our law club and we will be easily able to refute his claims if the law is there. Hope Quatloos readers are willing to do the same... and, by the way, using hearsay doesn't work. How about actual refutation of every claim made? Be honest, be sincere, and don't be a defrauding your readers.

[Famspear]

Well... it amazes me that there is such a resistance to anyone challenging the IRS, especially where they have not provided any evidence that what this guy says is NOT true.

Welcome to Quatloos.

Your assertion is total baloney. It's not a question of "resistance" to someone who is "challenging the IRS" -- and certainly not resistance to "anyone" who challenges the IRS. Many regulars here (myself included) challenge the IRS on a regular basis. That's our job. And our clients often win.

Are all the commentators fearful that it might be true?

Again, baloney. This web site exposes scams, including tax scams.

Why would name-calling and sucking up to the courts ignorance be presented rather than the evidence?

Again, baloney. Reporting what the law is is not "sucking up to the courts."

This really makes me wonder if Americans aren't really comfortable with their slavery.

No, this does not make you wonder. You're just throwing out rhetoric.

I'm willing to admit it isn't something most of us have ever faced, but do we condemn a guy for presenting a defense before the defense is even heard?

Again, baloney. First of all, no one is "condemning" Maehr. Second of all, his "defense" has been heard -- in court. Indeed, that's part of the whole point.

Isn't that like fascism and tyranny being supported?

More useless rhetoric. "Fascism" and "tyranny"? Get serious.

...and, by the way, using hearsay doesn't work. How about actual refutation of every claim made? Be honest, be sincere, and don't be a defrauding your readers.

Hearsay? Defrauding readers?

More baloney, more rhetoric. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU need to be honest, YOU need to be sincere, and YOU need to refrain from implying that others are "defrauding" the readers.

If you have a specific critique, then MAKE it. Identify exactly which poster here is "defrauding" the readers, and identify the specific language that you believe constitutes the fraud.