Patrick Mooney promotes Blowhard Hendrickson

[Famspear]

Along with Peter Eric (Blowhard) Hendrickson's tax scam, Mooney also speaks favorably of such things as:

David Icke - One of the most important people in the world today, David strives to zealously expose how humans have been manipulated en masse throughout our history. You will never see the world the same way again after reading one of his books. http://www.davidicke.com

I believe David Icke pushes the "reptilian humanoid" theory.

Mooney also talks about the Masons:

Freemasonry Watch - Get the scoop on why we all should be very wary of this apparently innocent fraternal organization. No matter how much they donate to charity, knowing the "other side" of this group may be the most charitable thing you could do for yourself! http://www.freemasonrywatch.org

Check out these and other Mooney recommendations at:

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

Patrick Michael Mooney . . . . Renaissance Man!

[Red Cedar PM]

Are we ready to cue the crickets on Mr. Mooney and Dud?

[Gregg]

Along with Peter Eric (Blowhard) Hendrickson's tax scam, Mooney also speaks favorably of such things as:

David Icke - One of the most important people in the world today, David strives to zealously expose how humans have been manipulated en masse throughout our history. You will never see the world the same way again after reading one of his books. http://www.davidicke.com

I believe David Icke pushes the "reptilian humanoid" theory.

Mooney also talks about the Masons:

Freemasonry Watch - Get the scoop on why we all should be very wary of this apparently innocent fraternal organization. No matter how much they donate to charity, knowing the "other side" of this group may be the most charitable thing you could do for yourself! http://www.freemasonrywatch.org

Check out these and other Mooney recommendations at:

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

Patrick Michael Mooney . . . . Renaissance Man!

You just gotta love the fact that some people will atek legal and tax adfvice from a former soccer player who thinks the Queen of England is a shape shifting lizard who controls the international cocaine trade. This guys too wierd for the tin foil hat brigade.

[Famspear]

Patrick Mooney is (or at one time was) a tax practitioner? From losthorizons today:

Non-Profits are a tricky subject. Benefits are usually derived from those who make donations to them, not necessarily those who work for them.

I've done work for two non-profits (501c3) during the course of my life. One was a Catholic School and the other, until recently, a family owned company.

I've filed for both of those in a CTC educated way, as work performed for those companies can in no way be construed as the exercise of a FEDERAL privilege.

[ . . . ]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0743#10743

(bolding added).

If those entities were 501(c)(3)'s, why would Mooney file for them "in a CTC educated way"?

On another front: I checked earlier today. Apparently nothing new on Mooney's appeal (at the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit) of his "CtC educated" defeat in U.S. Tax Court.

[Famspear]

It's possible that Mooney is erroneously equating non-profit status under state law with "501(c)(3)" status under federal income tax law. Hard to tell.

The mere fact that an organization is a non-profit organization under the law of the applicable state does not mean that the organization is exempt from federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3), or any other provision of section 501.

If an organization were really a 501(c)(3), I guess Mooney could still have been running the CtC scam with respect to unrelated business taxable income (e.g., sec. 511) of the organization. With these people, who knows?

[Famspear]

Oh, and at the expense of stating the obvious: If an entity is a "family owned company," it's not generally going to properly be considered a non-profit organization -- or a 501(c) organization either.

[Cpt Banjo]

I've filed for both of those in a CTC educated way, as work performed for those companies can in no way be construed as the exercise of a FEDERAL privilege.

It sounds like he's saying that the money he received for working for the two entities isn't taxable to him, owing to the lack of a federal privilege.

Of course, the whole "no taxation without a federal privilege" stuff is a myth without a shred of legal support.

[Famspear]

It sounds like he's saying that the money he received for working for the two entities isn't taxable to him, owing to the lack of a federal privilege.

OK, I got it.

Never mind......

[Famspear]

Patrick Michael Mooney's loss at the United States Tax Court has been affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

See docket entry 15 on 21 January 2009:

PATRICK MICHAEL MOONEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 06-21647).
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Michael Mooney, Appellant Pro Se. Marion Elizabeth Erickson, Steven Wesley Parks, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Mooney appeals from the tax court’s order dismissing his petition for redetermination of the Commissioner’s finding of a deficiency in Mooney’s 2004 income taxes and assessing penalties. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Mooney v. Comm’r., Tax Ct. No. 06-21647 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 5, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Another defeat for the followers of PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson -- which obviously proves to Mr. Mooney that Pete is "right."

EDIT: But there is no mention of any penalties against Mooney for filing a frivolous appeal. So, it's another Cracking the Code-style vvvvvvviiiiiiiiccccctoorrryyyyy! Yee-hah!

EDIT 2: Mooney was penalized only $1,000 by the U.S. Tax Court.

[Famspear]

Among the arguments Mooney made in his appeal was the familiar Hendricksonesque argument that Mooney's original tax return was "the beginning and end of the dispute." This is the frivolous argument that essentially asserts that the Internal Revenue Service is somehow bound by whatever Hendrickson and his followers report as income on their returns -- as the "final word on the subject," to use Mooney's words in his September 2008 brief. This goofy argument is based on a reading of section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862, of all things -- and a hilariously incorrect reading, at that.

Here's a chuckle: Mooney asserted in his brief that proceeding pro se had cost him "hundreds of hours in time that could have been spent in other, more pleasurable endeavors." Hey Patrick, cheer up! From my personal point of view, all the work you spent was well worth the entertainment you've provided to me! At least, it was worth it to me.....

[webhick]

Here's a chuckle: Mooney asserted in his brief that proceeding pro se had cost him "hundreds of hours in time that could have been spent in other, more pleasurable endeavors." Hey Patrick, cheer up! From my personal point of view, all the work you spent was well worth the entertainment you've provided to me! At least, it was worth it to me.....

Of course, no one put a gun to his head and told him that he had to do it himself. He deprived himself of those "pleasurable endeavors," thereby making him a litigious masochist.

So anyway, the phrase "pleasurable endeavors" sounds like a sexual euphemism and now I feel the need to de-creepy it before the ::shudder::s turn into a seizure. So, I think he's referring to:

Eating Cheetos and fondling his Liberty tool.
Making "Refused for Cause" stamps out of potatoes.
Figuring out why his Liberty tool has turned orange.
Reading CtC 4873 more times in the hope of comprehending it.
Figuring out how to get the orange off his Liberty tool.
Giving bad tax advice on internet forums.
Constructing a scrap wood shed out in his backyard and calling it the Hendricksonian.

[Thule]

Making "Refused for Cause" stamps out of potatoes.

One of the many useful tips from the bestselling book "The Frugal Sovereign". Includes hundreds of ideas for overthrowing the government without bankrupting yourself (if you recognice the concept of bankrupcy, of course) such as:

- Save money on expensive lawyers, LH can provide legal advice for free. Or why not do it yourself?
- Inviting friends and supporters to parties at your compound provides you with plenty of leftovers to help you in your standoff.
- Tannerite and nails - the budget claymore.
- Used tin-foil hats can be used for baking 'taters
- Cut-and-paste from other sovereigns courtramblings saves you time, time that can be used for other frugal activities.
- Always order your survival gear in the name of your strawman, billing adress should be US Treasury. Let those b*stards pay.

[ASITStands]

The only questions left:

How soon will Patrick discuss the case on Lost Horizons or elsewhere?

How soon before he admits he was wrong or finds a way to say, "I must have done it wrong?"

How soon before he jumps ship on Hendrickson and settles for another guru?

How soon before anyone else asks him about the case?

...

It's an unpublished opinion. It would have been nice if the Panel had addressed the issues more fully rather than settle for saying, "We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error."

[LPC]

It would have been nice if the Panel had addressed the issues more fully rather than settle for saying, "We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error."

I think that appellate courts writing unpublished opinions is mostly a waste of time. The lower court has already written on opinion of some sort for the appeal, so if the lower court got it right, the appellate court should just say so and not waste time writing something that no one but the parties will be reading.

If the lower court got it wrong, whether in whole or in part, then an opinion explaining why is needed, but there's usually not much point in writing an unpublished opinion to uphold the lower court.

[jg]

The cite given is Mooney v. Comm’r., Tax Ct. No. 06-21647 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 5, 2008).

A search at http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/asp/ ... ptions.asp does not return any result for Mooney.

Is their an online version of the decision for this case?

Is there a more nefarious reason why the case is not found during my search?

[ASITStands]

That's because there was no Memorandum Opinion at the Tax Court level.

It was an Order of Dismissal and Decision, a copy of which you can obtain by reviewing the docket at No. 21647-06, right-hand column, which also said very little about the issues.

Use the Docket Number link instead.

[Demosthenes]

http://psa.ustaxcourt.gov/DocImages/23582688/785636.pdf\

Tax Court has a screwy database.

I got to the above by doing a docket search for Last Name Mooney and scrolling the results until I found Patrick's filing in 2007. If I put in Patrick as the first name, this docket doesn't appear.

Bottom line, when searching the TC database, I only use the last name search.

[ASITStands]

I think that appellate courts writing unpublished opinions is mostly a waste of time. The lower court has already written on opinion of some sort for the appeal, so if the lower court got it right, the appellate court should just say so and not waste time writing something that no one but the parties will be reading.

If the lower court got it wrong, whether in whole or in part, then an opinion explaining why is needed, but there's usually not much point in writing an unpublished opinion to uphold the lower court.

I understand the rationale. Maybe my criticism should be directed at Tax Court for not doing a better job of debunking the 'Cracking the Code' theories behind his Petition. Dunno.

[ASITStands]

http://psa.ustaxcourt.gov/DocImages/23582688/785636.pdf\

Tax Court has a screwy database.

I got to the above by doing a docket search for Last Name Mooney and scrolling the results until I found Patrick's filing in 2007. If I put in Patrick as the first name, this docket doesn't appear.

Bottom line, when searching the TC database, I only use the last name search.

I had the same difficulty at first until I realized it's listed as 'Patrick Michael Mooney.'

[Demosthenes]

http://psa.ustaxcourt.gov/DocImages/23582688/785636.pdf\

Tax Court has a screwy database.

I got to the above by doing a docket search for Last Name Mooney and scrolling the results until I found Patrick's filing in 2007. If I put in Patrick as the first name, this docket doesn't appear.

Bottom line, when searching the TC database, I only use the last name search.

I had the same difficulty at first until I realized it's listed as 'Patrick Michael Mooney.'

It shouldn't matter since middle name is a separate field. It's a messed up db.