More legal brilliance from CtC'ers

[Dezcad]

From LH forums, more legal brilliance from mutter and danama-

mutter
Post subject: Re: Appeal

danama.1 wrote:
when you lose in Tax court, where should you appeal? I've been told to make a motion for Reconsideration and New Trial and file it in Tax court again--- I've also been told to appeal immediately to District Court if you lose in Tax Court. It's all very confusing.

IMO both are an option. although I think that the judge is not going to reconsider. there is an appeal court within the tax court. But I am not sure how you would remove it to district court. I dont think you can appeal a case in one court by going to another, unless there is some special provisions. What do the rules of tax court say?

[Famspear]

Gee, I just cannot imagine why these two clowns should be so confused and unsure of themselves on procedural aspects of tax law -- seeing as how they seem to feel so sure of their ability to conclude that Peter Eric (Blowhard) Hendrickson's Cracking the Code is the correct interpretation of the substantive tax law. If these clowns are so smart -- and if Hendrickson is so smart -- they should have no problem dealing with a puny ol' legal system.

Just make up your own rules, fellas! In federal courts, that should work for you just about as well as it did for Blowhard Hendrickson.

[Famspear]

Here's another, this one from Patrick Mooney:

Fellow Warriors,

As expected by me, I lost my Tax Court case on April 21st. The judge's ruling was "Failure to Prosecute." However, do not feel badly for me or for your own correct understanding of the law. The experience was completely enlightening to me and only solidified the fact that Pete Hendrickson is 100% correct in all that he says and writes about.

You are correct that I was indeed well prepared for the case, in terms of knowing the law and being prepared to prosecute the IRS. Unfortunately, I was not schooled on COURT PROCEDURE, which is an entierely [sic] different knowledge all together.

The lack of that knowledge cost me in this round, but I shall not make the same "mistakes" the next time around (this case was only for 1 year).

I will detail these "errors" in a more instructive way for eveyone [sic] once I receive transcripts of the Court proceedings.

I should point out,however, that even proper knowledge of procedure may not cause one to prevail in a Tax Court. Remember, these are IRS Courts, and you are not only contending with the Respondent (IRS), you are also contending with the judge. I was not completely prepared for that.

Anyway, I will soon be preparing a suit for the US District Court, in the hopes that there is a forum where the judge truly is impartial and does not consider the law to be "frivolous position."

(bolding added)

--from
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=447

(giggle ......)

[Famspear]

Regarding this Patrick Mooney, his profile at losthorizons indicates that this is his web site:

http://www.unlearning.org

Why, he's the CREATOR of something called the "Institute of Unlearning"!!!:

http://www.unlearning.org/mooney.htm

He says, referring to himself:

The events of 9/11, and all the foolishness that has followed, provided the final spark for his [Mooney's] break with mainstream reality.

(bolding added). A break with mainstream reality! Boy, you can say that again!

[Famspear]

On this page are links to an interview between Mooney and Hendrickson. Looks like two links, one which leads to a full video/audio, the other just the audio.

http://www.unlearning.org/library.htm

[ASITStands]

A break with mainstream reality! Boy, you can say that again!

I'd say it's more like a break with reality. These fellows [and, gals, don't forget the gals] act like they got their high school diploma from a Crack 'er Jack box.

No reading comprehension. No clue. No magic decoder ring. No prize.

[LPC]

Here's another, this one from Patrick Mooney:

The only Tax Court docket entry for Patrick Mooney is a case that was settled by stipulation in 2004.

The judge's ruling was "Failure to Prosecute." [....] Unfortunately, I was not schooled on COURT PROCEDURE, which is an entierely [sic] different knowledge all together.

Judging by the cases I have read, the only way a pro se litigant can lose in Tax Court for failure to prosecute is by willfully ignoring pretty much everything the judge says. So, for example, when the judge says to work with the IRS on a stipulation of uncontested facts, be obstinate and uncooperative. Or, when the judge says to be ready for trial on a particular date, either don't show up or show up unprepared.

In other words, you really have to be a frickin' tard.

[Famspear]

Here's another, this one from Patrick Mooney:

The only Tax Court docket entry for Patrick Mooney is a case that was settled by stipulation in 2004.

The judge's ruling was "Failure to Prosecute." [....] Unfortunately, I was not schooled on COURT PROCEDURE, which is an entierely [sic] different knowledge all together.

Judging by the cases I have read, the only way a pro se litigant can lose in Tax Court for failure to prosecute is by willfully ignoring pretty much everything the judge says. So, for example, when the judge says to work with the IRS on a stipulation of uncontested facts, be obstinate and uncooperative. Or, when the judge says to be ready for trial on a particular date, either don't show up or show up unprepared.

In other words, you really have to be a frickin' tard.

Dan, try a search under a separate case, docket number 021647-06, under "Patrick Michael Mooney."

[LPC]

Dan, try a search under a separate case, docket number 021647-06, under "Patrick Michael Mooney."

Thanks.

The last entry on the docket is a 4/16/2008 order that includes the following:

As was true of petitioner's pretrial memorandum filed as of March 19, 2008, and the petition, the pretrial memorandum that petitioner submitted with petitioner's motion contains statements, contentions, and/or arguments that the Court finds to be frivolous and groundless . The Court reminds petitioner again, as it did in its order dated March 20, 2008, and its Order dated April 2, 2008, about section 6673(a)(1), I .R .C . As the Court stated in those Orders, "In the event that petitioner continues to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and arguments, the Court will impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), I .R .C . "

That doesn't sound like a procedural problem to me.

[Nikki]

Patrick Michael Mooney - T.C. Docket #21647-06

As was true of petitioner's pretrial memorandum filed as of March 19, 2008, and the petition, the pretrial memorandum that petitioner submitted with petitioner's motion contains statements, contentions, and/or arguments that the Court finds to be frivolous and groundless.

The Court reminds petitioner again, as it did in its order dated March 20, 2008, and its Order dated April 2, 2008, about section 6673(a)(1), I .R .C . As the Court stated in those Orders, "In the event that petitioner continues to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and arguments, the Court will impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), I .R .C . "

Any bets on the amount of the penalty that gets imposed?

[LPC]

Regarding this Patrick Mooney, his profile at losthorizons indicates that this is his web site:

http://www.unlearning.org

Why, he's the CREATOR of something called the "Institute of Unlearning"!!!:

Mooney holds himself out as a religious teacher, and many religious disciplines include concepts like "unlearning." For example, Jesus said that "unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3) The process of converting and becoming like children could be described as "unlearning."

Many translations of the Tao de Ching actually use the word "unlearn" to describe the Way.

So it's not really as crazy as it might sound at first.

[Investor]

I once met a very old, very short, very green Jedi Master who told me, "You must unlearn what you have learned."

A little known fact: Yoda successfully de-taxed himself by claiming to be a sovereign citizen of the swamp planet Dagoba, and not a Citizen of the Galactic Empire. Of course, the conspiracy was only uncovered after an untold number of lives were lost (including the entire population of Alderaan - and several innocent Ewok's). The lesson to be learned here = never vote in favor of dismantling your legislative body in order to place a Sith Lord in a position of absolute power...and, by all means, if you ever see a special millage proposal on your local ballot for the construction of a space station with the words "Death" and "Star" in the name, vote "NO!".