LH newsletter looks at "some facts"

[jg]

From http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm as of 8/7/07

Nonetheless, let's look at some facts:

The evidence starts with the presentation in CtC of the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted. But it doesn't stop there.

The accuracy of that research and analysis is then incontrovertibly confirmed by an unending series of real-world, actual events, starting with my series of historic accomplishments as the first American to ever recover Social Security and Medicare "contributions", the first subject of both IRS summonses and IRS/DOJ injunction efforts to defeat each such assault (and not once, but three times), and the first to have forced the tax system into the choice of either watching its gravy-train be derailed by the truth I have revealed or abandon all pretenses of legitimacy and law and try to coerce me into undoing the bonds I have placed upon it.

Because the din of the "dis-informers" of all stripes too often succeeds in driving this out of the minds of the distractible, let me say this again: NONE OF THESE THINGS HAVE EVER BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE, BY ANYONE.

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. (King James Version)

[The Observer]

I wonder if Pete would mind if I wait until I see the final results of his "accomplishments" before congratulating him?

[Nikki]

It's astonishing how STUPID (or intentionally deceptive) Pete is.

On the page cited above, he refers to MAJOR CTC VICTORY

CtC Warriors Thwart Five IRS Summonses!

Dave and Toby Taylor are under an IRS assault stemming from their pre-CtC practices, which has thus far taken the form of a half-dozen "third-party record-keeper" summonses issued to their banks and other financial service-providers. Dave and Toby responded to the first of these with a "Petition to Quash" the summons using a mix of "mainstream" legal profession and non-CtC-educated "tax honesty" arguments. This effort was unsuccessfully pursued all the way into the circuit court after a district court dismissal of their petition.

However, by the time the next five summonses arrived, Dave and Toby were ready to use the law revealed at http://www.losthorizons.com/RespondingToTheAssault.htm. The consequence is nicely summarized by the DOJ here. Well done, Dave and Toby!

Now welcome to Mr Rogers' neighborhood and tell me, children, how many of you know what it means when five administrative summons are withdrawn based on the instructions contained in letters signed by people with the title of "Special Agent in Charge"? I'll give you a hint -- if you look at the letterheads in the referenced PDF, you'll see that they all say "Criminal Investigation"

This victory ranks right up there with only getting hit for $5,000 out of a possible $25,000 in sanctions.

[Dezcad]

From http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm as of 8/7/07

Nonetheless, let's look at some facts:

The evidence starts with the presentation in CtC of the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

Despite all the great legal minds, legal scholars and researchers that precede PH, he is the only one to "figure" this out.

How preposterous, especially given that not one court case can be cited which upholds his "research and analysis".

[LPC]

Now welcome to Mr Rogers' neighborhood and tell me, children, how many of you know what it means when five administrative summons are withdrawn based on the instructions contained in letters signed by people with the title of "Special Agent in Charge"? I'll give you a hint -- if you look at the letterheads in the referenced PDF, you'll see that they all say "Criminal Investigation".

I can understand that there might be Fifth Amendment issues that might lead the IRS to withdraw an administrative summons against a taxpayer when there is a criminal referral, but why withdraw a summons against a third party?

Is it possible that the IRS is investigating more than just the taxpayers at issue, and that the IRS does not want to explain that in a response to a petition to quash?

[.]

they all say "Criminal Investigation"

Yeah, but, those CI guys want to put you in prison, the other guys only want money.

Well, wait, the CI guys also want money when it's all said and done, directly as fines or indirectly when they turn it over to the civil guys.

The reason this sounds so good must be that Ed still isn't in prison (and hasn't yet paid any money.) Except one of his own making. Or something like that. How about that there's no $5K sanction yet? Maybe that's why this might suck in the gullible morons in droves.

[jkeeb]

I will not say I know the case law involved, but for a third party administrative summons to succeed an attempt to quash, the agent must meet the "Powell" factors. One of which is that there is no current Criminal Investigation referral. Once an agent has referred the case to CI (and accepted) the civil summons cannot survive a quash attempt.

Now, I do not know what tools CI has to get the information, and it may be another summons. But based on LH's post, the guy referenced obviously was juicy enough that CI didn't want to wait for a civil audit.

[LPC]

I will not say I know the case law involved, but for a third party administrative summons to succeed an attempt to quash, the agent must meet the "Powell" factors. One of which is that there is no current Criminal Investigation referral.

The Powell decision says nothing about the lack of a criminal investigation, and only says that the summons must be for a "legitimate purpose."

I finally looked at the statute, and the problem with using an administrative summons in a criminal investigation is in the wording of the statute itself. When Powell was decided in 1964, IRC section 7602(a) spoke about obtaining records and testimony "For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, ...." A criminal investigation does not seem to fall within those purposes, and I believe there are Circuit Court cases holding that a criminal investigation is not a "legitimate purpose" within the meaning of Powell.

Later, in 1982, section 7602(b) was added to allow summonses for the purpose of inquiring into criminal offenses, but (d) was also added to prohibit the enforcement of a third-party summons once there has been a referral to the Justice Department.

So I've found there's nothing mysterious about why the US withdraws the summons; it's just a matter of complying with section 7602.

[notorial dissent]

Which considering the parties involved might just be a subtle hint that worse is coming down the pike and that jubilation will soon turn to lament.

Nah, too logical and too grounded in reality, they'll never see it until they get MACK embedded in their foreheads.

[Dezcad]

Interestingly enough, JJ Bulten has been posting on other threads recently but is conspicuously absent from this one.

If you read this JJ, what do you think is going to happen to your fellow major CTC victors?

[Joey Smith]

Translation: "I've temporarily defrauded the federal government into giving me a bogus return by filing false returns. I may have been the first person to do this."

[John J. Bulten]

Interestingly enough, JJ Bulten has been posting on other threads recently but is conspicuously absent from this one.

If you read this JJ, what do you think is going to happen to your fellow major CTC victors?

I think that, before anything happens to these folks, we'll be seeing further successfully quashed summonses in other cases. However, I haven't completed my personal research on 7602 yet so can't comment in detail.

[Quixote]

I think that, before anything happens to these folks, we'll be seeing further successfully quashed summonses in other cases. However, I haven't completed my personal research on 7602 yet so can't comment in detail.

You might start by researching the difference between "quashed" and "withdrawn".

[Dezcad]

[I think that, before anything happens to these folks, we'll be seeing further successfully quashed summonses in other cases. However, I haven't completed my personal research on 7602 yet so can't comment in detail.

I think a number of CTCers may be seeing further withdrawn summonses in other cases, but you might want to read 7602(d)(2)(A)(i) to find out why. It's not a good thing.

[Quixote]

Isn't quash a game played indoors, with the players side by side on a hlf-tennis court, using a small raquet to smack a ball off the walls? And when you ace your opponent you have quashed them.......

Or am I confused.

Yes. Quash is a tasteless vegetable that the Indians served the Pilgrims in the hope that the Pilgrims would conclude that nothing edible could be grown in their new home and go back to England. (Holland, for the nitpickers.)

[Joey Smith]

John: If you don't know, when a tax investigation goes from civil to criminal, the civil investigation is immediately halted. That is why civil summonses are withdrawn.

As others have said, this is not a good sign for those whose summonses were withdrawn.

[notorial dissent]

Subtlety, or actually thinking things through not being John’s long suit, he will have missed that withdrawn summonses equals bad and worse for his dim and bewildered, and that criminal prosecution is in the offing, not the happy resolution he would like to believe.

[Famspear]

Yes. Quash is a tasteless vegetable that the Indians served the Pilgrims in the hope that the Pilgrims would conclude that nothing edible could be grown in their new home and go back to England

No, no, "quash" is what I do with my quothes when they're dirty - and after I quash my quothes they're queen, and then of quourse I put them on and quwear them.

[Cpt Banjo]

No, no, "quash" is what I do with my quothes when they're dirty - and after I quash my quothes they're queen, and then of quourse I put them on and quwear them.

Thanks for the correction, Mr. Fudd.