Richardf614 displays his skill at legal analysis

[Quixote]

A recent post by Richard Fusilier on the LH forum demonstrates the perils of interpreting a statute without actually reading the statute.

Just as in Pete's case, NO record of assessment was filed or in place, thus no taxes due. On this fact alone, the District court had no choice but to rule in Pete's favor. To prove an erroneous refund, the DOJ would have had to prove a valid assessment, this was not done.

Had he read the relevant statute, IRC §6401(b)(1), he would have seen

If the amount allowable as credits under subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to refundable credits) exceeds the tax imposed by subtitle A (reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A, B, D, G, and H of such part IV), the amount of such excess shall be considered an overpayment.

(Emphasis added)

[Demosthenes]

And everyone knows what an expert in tax laws Fuselier is...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, MAY 16, 2005
http://WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

COURT PERMANENTLY BARS TWO LOUISIANANS FROM PREPARING TAX RETURNS AND PROMOTING TAX-FRAUD SCHEMES

Lafayette Men Told Customers Wages Not Taxable

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department announced today that a Louisiana federal court has permanently barred Richard A. Fuselier and Richard J. Ortt and their organization, Compensation Consultants—all of Lafayette—from preparing tax returns for others and from promoting tax-fraud schemes. In entering the injunction order, Judge Tucker L. Melancon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette also barred the defendants from representing customers before the IRS, and ordered them to notify their customers of the injunction and post it on their websites.

The court found that Fuselier and Ortt promote several tax-evasion schemes, including the “claim of right” and “not for profit” schemes, which are based on the false position that wages cannot be taxed. The court found that the men promote their schemes through word of mouth and over the Internet, and charge customers $500 per year. The court also found that Fuselier and Ortt instruct customers to submit bogus tort claims against the government when it denies the customers’ fraudulent tax-refund requests.

“People who fail to pay their federal income taxes, or who encourage others not to, are risking serious penalties and possible prosecution,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service are working diligently to stop the promotion of tax fraud.”

Pursuant to an earlier court order in the case, the defendants gave the Justice Department a list of their customers.

The Injunction:

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/prtax/FuselierPermanent.pdf

[Demosthenes]

And then there's also that pesky criminal conspiracy case:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/fuselier1.pdf

[LPC]

Coincidentally, I was skimming the LH forum this morning and thinking that richardf614 is probably the most dangerous lunatic in the asylum. Consider these responses to requests for help in dealing with frivolous return letters:

All these notices and penalties are BS, go here and read:

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/It'sTimeToDemand.htm

Do not fall for this fluff and delay, grab them by the throat.

And, apparently quoting the guru himself:

Responding to the assertions of the errant party [meaning the IRS] with stern reminders of the requirements of the law, and giving it a chance to come into compliance, is appropriate. But once this has been done, and a reasonable opportunity for self-correction has been measured out, go to court! Prove that you filed, and demand that your filing be properly acknowledged! At the very least, seek a writ of mandamus ordering the government to do what the law requires. (PH)

The guy occasionally admits that his own forays against the IRS have been total failures, and yet he is constantly encouraging others to charge the machine guns armed with nothing but rubber knives.

Which is why he was a promoter, I guess.

[wserra]

This guy's a hoot.

Consider Fuselier v. United States, filed in the Court of Federal Claims under docket 04-cv-00008. Complaint filed 1-6-04 for "Illegal Levies and Distraints". Complaint dismissed sua sponte 2-11-04. More garbage received the same day, Clerk directed to return to sender. Same garbage received again 2-20-04. On 2-23-04, order entered as follows:

As the case is closed and jurisdiction in this matter is plainly lacking, these materials will not be filed and the Clerk is ordered to dispose of them in whatever fashion he deems proper. No further filings in this case shall be accepted and any further documents submitted by pltf in this matter shall similarly be disposed of.

Now, the Court doesn't specify what that "fashion" should be, but I'd bet that it is round and has empty styrofoam coffee cups in it.

And then there was Fuselier v. United States, docket 04-cv-00951, also in the Court of Federal Claims. It ended like this:

ORDER and OPINION DENYING 9 MOTION for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 filed by USA, granting 5 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) filed by USA. The plaintiff is ordered to refrain from filing or assisting in the fiing of any and all pro se actions in this court without prior approval of a judge of this court and directs the clerk to REJECT any filings that conflict with this order. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board for action. The clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint

And then there's Fuselier v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, docket 98-mc-00001 (LAMD), filed 1-5-98 and dismissed sua sponte two weeks later with the note, "Any further attempts by the ptlfs to have this court review this matter shall result in sanctions being imposed by the Court".

PACER has twenty-three dockets like this.

[Demosthenes]

Some of his older stuff is interesting, too.

835 S.W.2d 108, *; 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1928, **

PAUL W. KIMMELL A/K/A PAUL W. KIMMELL DC, APPELLANT vs. BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, APPELLEE

NO. 3-91-482-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN

835 S.W.2d 108; 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1928


June 3, 1992, Filed


JUDGES: Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd

OPINION BY: PER CURIAM

Appellant Paul W. Kimmell perfected this appeal from the district court's rendition of summary judgment in favor of appellee Burnet County Appraisal District in a dispute over ad valorem taxes. 1 While [*109] the appeal was pending, Kimmell filed a "Petition for Redress of Grievance and Notice of Removal" (appendix A) in the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas to remove the cause from the Burnet County district court. The appraisal district has received a "Order" (appendix B) and "Notice of Removal" (appendix C) from the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas removing the cause from the Burnet County district court. 2 The appraisal district filed a motion with this Court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or, in the alternative, [**2] for lack of jurisdiction, and requested that we award damages under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 84. Kimmell responded by removing the appraisal district's motion to the common-law court. Since that time, Kimmell has filed: (1) a "Petition for Redress of Grievance and Notice of Removal" (appendix D) in the Republic of Texas Common Law Court to remove the cause from this Court; (2) "Notice of Hearing" (appendix E) by the Republic of Texas Common Law Court of a Common Law Arbitration and Award Hearing" set for May 28, 1992; (3) "Motion to Transfer Proceedings" from the Republic of Texas Common Law Court to the Common Law Court of the United States of America (appendix F); and (4) an order from the Republic of Texas Common Law Court transferring the cause to the Common Law Court of the United States of America (appendix G).


FOOTNOTES

1 Kimmell contends the district court erred in grating summary judgment because the assigned trial judge allegedly never took his oath of office, Kimmell was not notified of the trial judge's assignment to the cause, and other lawsuits were pending involving the same claims in the instant cause. Kimmell apparently does not challenge the merits of the district-court summary judgment. [**3]

2 We are aware that the Republic of Texas adopted the common law of England by statute effective on March 16, 1840. 1840 Repub. Tex. Laws, § 1, at 3, reprinted in 2 H.P.N. Gammel, The Laws of Texas 1822-1897, at 177, 178 (Austin, Gammel Book Co. 1898) (since repealed and reenacted as Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 5.001 (1986); see 1840 Repub. Tex. Laws, § 1, at 6-7, reprinted in 2 H.P.N. Gammel, supra, at 180-81 (since amended and repealed) (laws formerly effective forty days after the adjournment of Texas Congress; Tex. Const. art. III, § 39 now provides that laws are effective ninety days after the adjournment of the legislature). Texas was admitted into the Union on December 29, 1845, by virtue of a joint resolution of the United States Congress. Calkin v. Cocke, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 227, 239, 14 L. Ed. 398 (1852); Act approved Dec. 29, 1845, 9 Stat. 108. The state government was not organized until February 16, 1846, and until that time the government and laws of the Republic were in force to the exclusion of the state government. Newby v. Haltaman, 43 Tex. 314, 314-15 (1875); see Tex. Const. of 1845, art. XIII, §§ 1-2, 6, 10. The Common Law Court of the Republic of Texas, therefore, could only have existed between March 16, 1840, and February 16, 1846. We are confused, however, by the presence of a ZIP code on the common-law court's file mark, because the Post Office Department's Zone Improvement Program only began in the early 1960s as a result of the Postal Policy Act of 1958, P.L. 85-426, 72 Stat. 134.



[**4] We hold that HN1the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist since February 16, 1846. Kimmell's actions in filing his "Petition[s] for Redress of Grievance and Notice of Removal" constitute an abandonment of his appeal, and we grant the appraisal district's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Further, we determine that Kimmell has taken this appeal for delay and without sufficient cause and, therefore, award the appraisal district ten percent of the damages awarded to it in the district court as damages against Kimmell.

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd]

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution on Appellee's Motion

Filed: June 3, 1992

APPENDIX A

THE COMMON LAW COURT FOR THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS

BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, et al. VS DR. P. W. KIMMELL (Docket # 13,425) Accused.

CASE NO:

CHANCELLOR:

FILED At 5:45 O'clock P.M., Date 3-29-92 A.D., Clerk of Court Gary Fiscus, Republic of Texas 78028, By Dr. P.W. Kimmell, 92-3029-1

[*110] PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE AND NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO: THE HONORABLE CHANCELLOR AND COURT [**5] CLERK OF THE COMMON LAW COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS:

Comes now accused Kimmell to file this Petition For Redress Of Grievance And Notice of Removal of the above described case now filed in the 33rd Judicial District Court, Burnet Texas, Burnet County Courthouse, (Docket # 13,425) to the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas and in support of this action, the Court is shown the following:

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has original jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment I, which specifies that the government will make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievance and the claim to jurisdictional immunity will be submitted to arbitration, an equity action.

II. VENUE

The acts alleged herein transpired within the Territory known as Texas; therefore, venue is properly set therein since accused is not a citizen of the State of Texas nor of the United States nor a resident of the State of Texas nor a resident of the United States.

III PARTIES

Accused is a Texas Republic national ruled by the common law, therefore a common law citizen living in the territory known as Texas [**6] and alien to the State of Texas.

IV.

Plaintiffs, [Clayton Evans, Robert C. Wright, James R. Meyers, Marble Falls Independent School District, Burnet County Municipal Water District, Burnet County, City of Marble Falls, Stan Hemphill with McCreary, Veleska, Bragg, and Allen, P.C. attorneys], are a corporation established under the Constitution for the United States and bound to the provisions thereof.

V. NATURE OF THE ACTION

Accused was arrested and jailed by an agent of the Plaintiffs without V. Amendment Due Process of Law and proceeded against by Plaintiffs' attorneys in "clear abuse of Texas Substantive Law", Texas Court Administration Act, 74.053.

VI. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (A)

Accused's arrest-incarceration process and subrogation of due course of process has violated the Jurisdictional immunities of the accused.

VII. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (B)

The courts of the State of Texas have no common law jurisdiction applied by Plaintiffs' Judicial Court system so there is no administrative remedy, except by common law Equity Arbitration.

VIII. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (C)

Accused is entitled to redress of grievances at common law.

WHEREFORE, the Accused petitions this Court [**7] for relief and judgement by:

(1) Granting this Petition and Notice Of Removal.

(2) ordering the claim to jurisdictional immunity to common law equity Arbitration by Notice of this Court's Clerk to the named Plaintiffs herein.

(3) After arbitration, ordering the action for execution on the Arbitration findings Award pertaining to Docket # 13,425 and all related matters thereto.

VERIFICATION

I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct. DATE AFFIRMED: 3/29/92

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Dr. P.W. Kimmell Pro Per

Texas national Dr. P.W. Kimmell

% P.O. Box 1090, Ph. (512) 693-4329

Republic of Texas 78654

[*111] APPENDIX B

THE COMMON LAW COURT FOR THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS

BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, et al. VS DR. P. W. KIMMELL, D.C. (Docket # 13,425) Accused.

FILED At 5:45 O'clock P.M., Date 3-29-92 A.D., Clerk of Court Gary Fiscus, Republic of Texas 78028, By

CASE NO: 92-3029-1

CHANCELLOR:

ORDER

Considering the above and foregoing Notice of Removal:

IT IS ORDERED that the above [**8] mentioned-action be removed to this Republic Of Texas Common Law Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a true and correct copy of the Record and Docket Sheet of all action filed in the state Court pertaining to Docket # 13,425 be forwarded to this Common Law Court, 1915 Junction Highway, Republic of Texas 78028 as accused Kimmell is proceeding in Forma pauperis without the ability to pay Court Costs and production of Records.

SIGNED ON THIS 29 DAY OF MARCH, 1992, IN THE Territory known as Texas.

David Zly

CHANCELLOR PRESIDING

APPENDIX C

DOCKET # 13,425

BURNETT COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, et al. PLAINTIFFS. vs. P. W. Kimmell, D.C. et al. Accused.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT BURNET COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Judicial Notice Requested

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE 33rd. BURNET COUNTY TEXAS DISTRICT CLERK CURINGTON:

The State of Texas and the 33rd. Judicial District Court, Burnet County, Texas are hereby Noticed that the above referenced actions have been removed to the Republic of Texas Common Law Court, Docket # 92-3029-1, , for the purposes of (1) submitting a claim of jurisdictional immunity [**9] to arbitration, (2) obtaining a common law Equity Arbitration and Award, and (3) presenting finding of same for execution on the findings of Arbitration.

In support of this notice the 33rd Judicial District Court, Burnet County, Texas and Court Clerk Modena Curington are shown the following and Requested to take Judicial Notice:

I.

Accused Kimmell is a common law citizen with immunities and therefore exempt from prosecution by State of Texas Court proceeding without a common law jury trial.

II.

That accused Kimmell is proceeding in Forma paupauis.

III.

Accused Kimmell has removed the action in Docket No. 13,425 to the Republic of Texas Common Law Court under the above stated provisions of Law.

[*112] IV.

Copies of said removal action are attached hereto.

WHEREFORE, by the authority cited herein, the accused tenders Notice of Removal and the Republic of Texas common law Court issuance of ORDERS that one (1) copy of the entire Record and Docket Sheet of the action pertaining to Docket # 13,425 be sent to the Republic of Texas Common Law Court, 1915 Junction Highway, Republic of Texas 78028 and to temporarily stay the action of the State of [**10] Texas, 33rd. Judicial District Court, Burnet County, Texas for proper jurisdictional determinations. Filed on the 29th day of March, , 1992, with certified copy of same sent to State of Texas District Court Clerk Modena Curington, Burnet County Courthouse, Burnet, Texas 78611 by U.S. Certified Return Receipt Requested Mail # P397238912 and Attorney Shelburne J. Veselka for Plaintiffs of McCreary, Veleska, Bragg, and Allen, P.C. Law Firm, P.O. Box 26990, Austin, Texas 78755-0990 by Certified Mail Receipt # P397238913.

By:

Republic of Texas Court Clerk

% 1915 Junction Highway

Republic of Texas 78028

P.W. Kimmell Pro Per

For: P. W. Kimmell, D.C. et al.

C/O P.O. Box 1090, 512-693-4329

Republic of Texas 78654

APPENDIX D

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS COMMON LAW COURT

BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, et al. VS DR. P. W. KIMMELL, ACCUSED (In Re. Case # 03-91-00482-CV).

CASE NO: 92-3029-1

CHANCELLOR:

FILED At 7:00 O'clock P.M., Date 5-7-92 A.D., Clerk of Court Gary Fiscus, Republic of Texas 78028, By Dr. P.W. Kimmell

RECEIVED MAY 13 92, THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE AND [**11] MOTION FOR REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE CHANCELLOR AND COURT CLERK OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS COMMON LAW COURT:

COMES NOW accused Kimmell to file this petition For Redress Of Grievance And Motion For Removal of the above described case now filed in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas, (Case No. 03-91-00482-CV) in the action of Appellee Motion To Dismiss to the Republic of Texas Common Law Court and in support of this action, the Court is shown the following:

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has original jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment I, which specifies that the government will make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievance and the claim to jurisdictional immunity will be submitted to arbitration, an equity action.

II. VENUE

The acts alleged herein transpired within the Territory known as Texas; therefore, venue is properly set therein since accused is not a citizen of the State of Texas nor of the United States nor a resident of the State of Texas nor a resident of the United States.

III. PARTIES

Accused is a Texas Republic national ruled by the common law, [**12] therefore a common law citizen living in the territory known as Texas and alien to the State of Texas.

[*113] IV.

Plaintiffs/Appellees Clayton Evans, Robert C. Wright, James R. Meyers, Marble Falls Independent School District, Burnet County Municipal Water District, Burnet County, City of Marble Falls, Stan Hemphill with McCreary, Veleska, Bragg and Allen, P.C. attorneys are a corporation established under the Constitution for the United States and bound to the provisions thereof.

V. NATURE OF THE ACTION

Accused was arrested and jailed by an agent of the Plaintiffs/Appellees without V. Amendment Due Process of Law and proceeded against by plaintiffs's attorneys in "clear abuse of Texas Substantive Law" Texas Court Administrative Act, 74.053.

VI. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (A)

Accused's arrest-incarceration process and subrogation of due course of process has violated the Jurisdictional immunities of the accused.

VII. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (B)

The courts of the State of Texas have no common law jurisdiction applied by plaintiffs' Judicial court System so there Is no administrative remedy, except by common law Equity Arbitration.

VIII. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (C)

Accused is [**13] entitled to redress of grievances at common law. WHEREFORE, the Accused petitions this Court for relief and judgment by:

(1) Granting this petition and Motion For Removal.

(2) Ordering the claim to jurisdictional immunity to common law Arbitration by Notice of this Court's Clerk to the named plaintiffs herein.

(3) After Arbitration, ordering the action for execution on the Arbitration findings Award pertaining to Case No. 03-91-00482-CV and all related matters thereto.

VERIFICATION

I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated May 7, 1992

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dr. P.W. Kimmell Pro Per

Texas national Dr. P.W. Kimmell

% P.O. Box 1090, Ph. (512) 693-4329

Republic of Texas 78654

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul W. Kimmell, Certify that a true and correct copy of Petition For Redress of Grievances and Motion For Removal and Notice of Hearing from the Republic of Texas Common Law Court Clerk Gary Fiscus were sent post paid to Appellees' Attorneys McCreary, Veleska, Bragg, and Allen P.C., Third Court of Appeals Chief Justice [**14] and Associated Justices through Clerk of Court W. Kenneth Law and Judges Clayton Evans, Robert C. Wright, and James R. Meyers through their Clerk of Court Modena Curington by U.S. Certified Return Receipt Requested Mail,

# P 428 830 360 To Third Court of Appeals Chief Justice and Associate Justices, P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711;

# P 428 830 361 To 33rd Judicial District Court Judges Clayton Evans, Robert C. Wright, and James R. Meyers, Burnet County Courthouse, Burnet County, Texas 78611;

# P 428 830 362 To Attorneys Mc Creary, Veleska, Bragg and Allen, P. C., P.O. Box 26990, Austin, Texas 78755;

# P 428 830 363 To Arbitrator Richard Fuselier, 3616 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite A Box 31, Republic of Louisiana, 70503 on the 8th. day of May, 1992.

Dr. P.W. Kimmell Pro Per

[*114] APPENDIX E

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS COMMON LAW COURT

BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, et al. VS DR. P. W. KIMMELL, ACCUSED (In Re. Case # 03-91-00482-CV).

CASE NO: 92-3029-1

CHANCELLOR:

RECEIVED MAY 13 92, THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK

NOTICE OF HEARING

Accused Dr. P. W. Kimmell has Removed Case [**15] # 03-91-00482-CV to this Court for a Hearing set certain on the 28th. day of May, 1992, on Appellee's Motion To Dismiss (Sanctions) in Burnet County Appraisal District, et al. v. Dr. P. W. Kimmell, Case No. 03-91-00482-CV.

Attorneys McCreary, Veleska, Bragg & Allen, P.C. for Burnet County Appraisal District, et al., Third Court Of Appeals Chief Justice and Associate Justices, Austin Texas, the Burnet County Texas 33rd. Judicial District Court Judges Clayton Evans, Robert C. Wright, and James R. Meyers and Arbitrator Richard Fuselier for accused Dr. P. W. Kimmell are hereby Noticed that Common Law Arbitration and Award Hearing is set certain far May 28, 1992, 1702 Commerce St., City of Marble Falls, Burnet County, Texas, at 2:00 O'Clock P.M. in the Republic of Texas Common Law Court, Burnet County, Texas.

The herein named parties of interest intent to make personal appearance at this Noticed scheduled Hearing should notify, in writing, Arbitrator Richard Fuselier for Dr. P. W. Kimmell, at 3613 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite A Box 31, Republic of Louisiana 70503 no later than May 15, 1992 for possible mediation and settlement relief as well as other [**16] legal matters that could be had without a Common Law Jury Trial on unresolved disputes.

Court Clerk Gary Fiscus

1915 Junction Highway

Republic of Texas 78028

Date Signed: 5-7-92

APPENDIX F

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS COMMON LAW COURT

BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, et al. VERSUS DR. P.W. KIMMELL

3-91-482-CV

FILED At 8:00 O'clock P.M., Date 5-16-92 A.D., Clerk of Court Gary Fuscus, Republic of Texas 78028, By Dr. P.W. Kimmell

RECEIVED MAY 20 92, THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK

MOTION TO TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS

Comes now Arbitrator to file this motion and in support of the Court is shown the following:

I.

The Common Law Court of the Republic of Louisiana is merging with other Common Law Courts to form the Common Law Court of the United States of America.

II.

A rule book containing rules of procedure, forms, and other information will be printed.

[*115] III.

The Common Law Court of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the "Court") will give full faith and credit to all decisions of your court.

IV.

The "Court" by providing a wider base of judges, arbitrators, and chancellors will be able to give a [**17] judgment that will not be influenced by local friendships and conditions.

V.

This "Court" will also serve as a storage facility for our Common Law decisions.

Wherefore the mover herein moves the Court to order all records, files, and all future filings to be directed to:

Common Law Court, United States of America, Non Domestic Mail, 3613 Ambassador Caffery A-31, Lafayette, Louisiana 70503

Richard Fuselier, Arbitrator

APPENDIX G

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS COMMON LAW COURT

BURNET COUNTY APPRAISAL

DISTRICT, et al.

VERSUS

DR. P.W. KIMMELL

CASE NO: 92-3029-1

ORDER

Considering the motion filed herein the Court hereby orders all records, files, and all future filings to be directed to:

Common Law Court, United States of America, Non Domestic Mail, 3613 Ambassador Caffery A-31, Lafayette, Louisiana 70503

So done and adjudged on this 16th day of May, 1992 at 8:03 PM o'clock in the Republic of Texas.

Hardy H. Nutto

JUDGE

[The Observer]

Now, the Court doesn't specify what that "fashion" should be, but I'd bet that it is round and has empty styrofoam coffee cups in it.

Please - I'm sure you will agree that you are demeaning court clerks by implyng that their creativity is limited to using the nearest trash receptacle. I am sure any number of court clerks, given the torment they have had to endure over the years with the puerile filings of TPs, could come up with a number of entertaining and satisfying ways to dispose of richardf614's filings, per the lenient instructions of the court.

I myself, if I were the court clerk in question, would follow the example of the angry Russians who deposed the false Dimitri. After executing said Dimitri, it is said that he was cremated, his ashes loaded into a cannon, and fired in the general direction of Warsaw, from whence he had originated. In this TPs' case, I would burn the filings, and mail them back to richardf614 - postage due.

[LPC]

PACER has twenty-three dockets like this.

Yes, and *any* attempt to familiarize the denizens of LH with the (shall we say) "shortcomings" of their most avid and passionate cheerleader will be met with the most comprehensive censorship, including (but not limited to) immediate termination of login rights and immediate deletion of all postings that don't conform to the CtC script.

ATTENTION ALL CtC/LH DENIZENS: You're being lied to. The fact that you don't see that means that you are all idiots and all deserve all the civil and penalties that will eventually be imposed.

[ASITStands]

He posted under another login on the old forum. He was always suggesting they litigate an exception to collection [can't remember the details], and several argued with him.

Finally, John Bulten banned him just a few weeks before the old forum vanished.

[ASITStands]

'Richardf614' disavowing any connection to Richard Fuselier

And, I think that's right. The language of 'richardf614' is different than the earlier poster who was indeed Fuselier. Don't remember the login he used, but it was obviously him.

He even admitted it in the debate that followed.

And, I think 'richardf614' was a poster then, as well.

[Famspear]

The lost souls at losthorizons are still thrashing around blindly over the above posts.

Richardf614 writes:

Concerned viewer,

You can run with this as everything I stated is true. It will be interesting to see, If they retract their incorrect information. I am not holding my breath.

If, this is an example of how they interpret the code and law (making it up as they go), I will not be retaining their services anytime soon!

They call us nuts!

Richard ol’ buddy, you are delusional. Almost everything you write is incorrect. You apparently have not the foggiest clue about the meaning of the statutes you are reading. Even your own people at losthorizons are correcting you. If you really believe your nonsensical writings about the tax laws are correct, I have some swamp land in Florida I want to sell to you.

Richardf614 wrote:

Fourth, I guess they have nothing better to do, than to monitor this site. Must be a slow news day at Quatloos.

Richard, unfortunately for those posters at losthorizons who are filing false federal income tax refund claims (i.e., following the CtC scam), we Quatloos posters are not the only ones monitoring losthorizons. If you are acting on CtC, you are engaged in criminal activity. Your saving grace in such case, if any, is that relatively few people are actually prosecuted for tax crimes.

And Kensei at losthorizons writes:

I read through the post, but I can't see what's the deal. Are they saying that if Pete had credits beyond the tax, that no 'assessment' would be needed since he filed a return? Are they saying that overpayments are erroneous? I'll have to read it again as the IRC section they posted seems to have nothing to do with the IRS making an official, signed assessment.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=539

Kensei, do you think that you or the other posters at losthorizons might have no clue about the difference between the imposition of a tax and the assessment of a tax? Are you really so clueless that you don’t realize that there is no requirement that a federal income tax be assessed in order for it to be legally owed? Are you unaware, for example, that if you file bankruptcy, the mere fact that the federal income tax for a particular year has not been assessed by the IRS does not change the fact that the tax is legally owed, and that the IRS can collect that tax?

Peter Eric Hendrickson’s tax refunds or credits were ruled to be erroneous by a federal district court. Not only that, but Hendrickson is now prohibited by a federal court order from even using his own CtC scam (ahem, excuse me, his CtC theory) on his own 2007 federal income tax return. If he uses his own theory on his own tax return, not only will he have committed several tax law felonies, he will be guilty of criminal contempt.

Earth calling Kensei.....

Earth calling Kensei.....

Come in, Kensei....

Anybody home?

All you losthorizoners who read this, take note: Those of you losthorizoners who actually participate in the CtC scam by filing tax returns using the CtC “method” will some day regret that you did so. And whether it be criminal prosecution, or seizure of your assets by the IRS, or both, you will remember that on this day, May 19, 2008, you read these words in the Quatloos tax protester forum.

[Dr. Caligari]

Not Richard, but another genius at LH posted this gem (beverages down, please):

hello: anyone have a fast track on the process of filing a writ of mandamus, looking to do it asap and dont feel like spending weeks trying to cover stuff that you all might have gone through already. which court do i contact ? is there a big fee ? how long is the process. can it be done by mail? what is the success rate. and what is the best source for finding information on the writ of mandamus. some of these questions are no brainers, but some reading may not know. please, if you know something fill me in. no runaround at this point just facts. if ctc is true. i first hand know it is. why do some seem so scared to talk about and help folks. if its true why hide. i know of someone who killed themselves over these irs bastards. its personal for me. and i know there are brighter bulbs on here than me , but i doubt many have less fear, i want my property back. the irs is destroying lots of good people based on a lie. so if you know forsure aplications that worked for you, please share. in detail ,

[Lambkin]

i know there are brighter bulbs on here than me , but i doubt many have less fear

As a child he started acting a little loopy after the third time he was dropped on his head.

[Randall]

Just go down to the local courthouse and ask the clerk for copies of other writ of mandumbass that have been filed.

[LPC]

Not Richard, but another genius at LH posted this gem (beverages down, please):

hello: anyone have a fast track on the process of filing a writ of mandamus, looking to do it asap and dont feel like spending weeks trying to cover stuff that you all might have gone through already. which court do i contact ? is there a big fee ? how long is the process. can it be done by mail? what is the success rate. and what is the best source for finding information on the writ of mandamus. some of these questions are no brainers, but some reading may not know. please, if you know something fill me in. no runaround at this point just facts. if ctc is true. i first hand know it is. why do some seem so scared to talk about and help folks. if its true why hide. i know of someone who killed themselves over these irs bastards. its personal for me. and i know there are brighter bulbs on here than me , but i doubt many have less fear, i want my property back. the irs is destroying lots of good people based on a lie. so if you know forsure aplications that worked for you, please share. in detail ,

In Lah-Lah land, this the worst kind of troll, asking specific, practical questions.

What he doesn't yet get is that CtC is not a legal theory, or a pleading, but a state of mind, a kind of gestalt of tax denial.

CtC is to tax returns and court pleadings what Zen is to archery. The forms you use and what they say aren't important, but your state of mind. Just close your eyes and let it fly. It either hits the target or it doesn't, depending on whether or not you are in tune with the CtC universe.

[Dr. Caligari]

what is the success rate.

On a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the IRS to accept a CtC return?

Zero.

Can you say "sovereign immunity," boys and girls?

I knew you could!

[Famspear]

The CtCer known as "mutter" writes:

So once again the pathetic loosers [sic] at quatloose [sic] have nothing better to do with their time then [sic] to troll here and then go there to comment.
Kinda funny how all they can come up with are insults. your [sic] wrong the law doesnt [sic] say that.
if the IRS does ever drag me into court.[sic] I am going to supena [sic] all you loosers [sic] to come and testify about how crazy I am and my incapacity to analyze law. then I ll [sic] never be convicted as obviously I cant [sic] be held liable when I am crazy and incompetant [sic].
thats [sic] for the idea wankers[.]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =4233#4233

Dear "mutter": Having nothing better to do, I checked out losthorizons and found your verbiage above.

Clue: The mere fact that you appear unable to write a reasonably literate paragraph in the English language does not mean you are "crazy" -- or that you are "incompetant" as you put it. Also (and I hate to be the one to break it to you), even if you were in some sense "crazy," that does not necessarily mean that you lacked "willfulness" as that legal term is used in the federal tax crime statutes.

Anyway, thanks for the humor. I'm sure it will work about as well here in Quatloos as will if you ever have the misfortune to have to face the federal tax collection apparatus.

Yeah, I suspect that many of the "loosers" here at "Quatloose" pay more in federal income tax each year than you earn in a year, mutter. We're such "loosers."

Mutter, I encourage you to read all the posts here in Quatloos, and to examine yourself and your own life. Try to figure out why you are beating your head against a brick wall by espousing a tax protester scam promulgated by an ex-con who, when the chips were down, was unable to win his own tax case in federal court, who is now under a court order prohibiting him from using his Cracking the Code nonsense on his own tax returns, and who knows less about federal income tax law than my sister's dog.

The tax law says exactly what we say it says. The tax law is exactly what we say it is.

Winners talk; losers walk.

[Demosthenes]

Words of wisdom from the illiterati.

[Imalawman]

The tax law says exactly what we say it says. The tax law is exactly what we say it is.

Winners talk; losers walk.

I tried that with a judge once, but it didn't work.....maybe I should try again in good tax protestor "head-against-the-brick-wall" style.

Open question to all those that adhere to CTC or similar theory - How does proving that your compensation, or other remuneration, for services rendered are exempt under IRC Sec. 3401 serve to remove that compensation from inclusion from gross income under IRC Sec. 61?

Best case scenario for you - you win on IRC sec. 3401, in that, only gov't and corp. officers are subject to withholding. How does that help you at the end of the year to avoid including your compensation in your gross income? (and now as a bonus, you've withheld nothing and probably not saved enough and find yourself short several thousand dollars)

As to why we pick on loserheads...we all need a break from the sometimes mentally strenuous practice of law or other similar gainful employment.

[Dezcad]

So once again the pathetic loosers [sic] at quatloose [sic] have nothing better to do with their time then [sic] to troll here and then go there to comment.

I think many here would be happy to post at LH if we weren't banned as soon as we make any post contrary to the CrackHead hallucination.

Kinda funny how all they can come up with are insults. your [sic] wrong the law doesnt [sic] say that.

A tad sensitive, are we? How is pointing out your faulty legal reasoning and analysis an "insult"?

if the IRS does ever drag me into court.[sic] I am going to supena [sic] all you loosers [sic] to come and testify about how crazy I am and my incapacity to analyze law. then I ll [sic] never be convicted as obviously I cant [sic] be held liable when I am crazy and incompetant [sic].
thats [sic] for the idea wankers[.]

What other laws do you plan on breaking based upon your impeccable logic above?