Patrick Mooney promotes Blowhard Hendrickson

[ASITStands]

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

Try Last Name: Mooney, First Name: Patrick Michael

That was my point. Yeah. It's messed up if they put both names in the first name field. I've seen it a number of times, and it always messes up the search until you find the case.

I narrowed my search originally because I knew he was near Richmond, Virginia.

[.]

appellate courts writing unpublished opinions is mostly a waste of time

It's worse than that. The morons, not understanding what "do not publish" means, think that it's some sort of conspiracy even though it's publicly stated.

Instead of "do not publish," how about something along the lines of "not precedential because we broke no legal ground in this Circuit, and, in fact, we only needlessly droned on about tired, shop-worn, frivolous baloney because we like to hear ourselves write. There's no need to waste any ink on it as the appellate value of this case is something less than zero?"

[ASITStands]

Instead of "do not publish," how about something along the lines of "not precedential because we broke no legal ground in this Circuit, and, in fact, we only needlessly droned on about tired, shop-worn, frivolous baloney because we like to hear ourselves write. There's no need to waste any ink on it as the appellate value of this case is something less than zero?"

Exactly right!

However, the next poor fellow who makes an argument similar to Patrick Mooney's will likely see a citation lifted out of this case (if there's one to lift) nixing his argument.

Unpublished cases get cited in appellate briefs when it suits the Tax Division Attorneys. Doesn't matter whether it's precedential or not, or whether it's a holding or dicta. It gets cited, while at the same time they'll not shy away from claiming your citation is dicta only.

Even dicta that doesn't change the outcome or holding of the case.

[grixit]

appellate courts writing unpublished opinions is mostly a waste of time

It's worse than that. The morons, not understanding what "do not publish" means, think that it's some sort of conspiracy even though it's publicly stated.

Instead of "do not publish," how about something along the lines of "not precedential because we broke no legal ground in this Circuit, and, in fact, we only needlessly droned on about tired, shop-worn, frivolous baloney because we like to hear ourselves write. There's no need to waste any ink on it as the appellate value of this case is something less than zero?"

How about:

This document may be freely distributed to law students to accustom them to the tedium and stupidity that makes up so much of real world litigation.

[jg]

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.

Thank you for the link.

I respectfully disagree that very little was said (or perhaps that more than a very litte was needed to dispense with the frivoloty):

After cross-examination, the Court asked petitioner whether
the respective amounts that he acknowledged he received during
2004 from Interstate Industries, Inc ., and The Center, Inc ., in
return for the services that he performed for those companies
during that year constitute wages under the Federal income tax
(tax) laws . Petitioner responded that those amounts do not
constitute wages "Because the law clearly states that the term
`wages' is remuneration to an employee", and the term "employee"
means "someone performing the functions of a public office . "

The Court informed petitioner that he was advancing a
frivolous and groundless argument in support of his position that
the respective amounts reflected in Forms W-2 that he
acknowledged he received from Interstate Industries, Inc ., and
The Center, Inc ., respectively, for work that he performed for
those companies during 2004 do not constitute wages under the tax
laws .

Of course, tax deniers do not understand what the court is trying to tell them when it says that "he was advancing a frivolous and groundless argument in support of his position."

In case any casual readers are not familiar with what the court means here is an explanation from http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#purpose

In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as “frivolous,” “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “preposterous,” or “gibberish.” If you don’t read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument “frivolous” or “ridiculous.” Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for “absurd.”

For me, and most rational people, the court saying that when Petitioner responded that those amounts do not constitute wages "Because the law clearly states that the term `wages' is remuneration to an employee", and the term "employee" means "someone performing the functions of a public office " is frivolous and groundless is not saying very little about the issues. It is enough said.