LH'rs are pathetic

[Demosthenes]

You are not worth neither the apostrophe nor the ‘e’. Comprehend? If you want to debate semantics, you are on the forum.

Not neither nor. Ew.

[Famspear]

You are not worth neither the apostrophe nor the ‘e’. Comprehend? If you want to debate semantics, you are on the forum.

Not neither nor. Ew.

"Nither noother nor nibbler be."

I have no idea what that means.

I know we could argue semantics
With our silly and immature antics.
But we stay on the forum
Writing things that won't bore 'em--
And the scammers go morbidly frantic.

[LPC]

The distinction for the usage of who or whom is related to the subjective or objective, not whether it is in a question or not.

so

Nope, those silly things, coupled with those several low-level IRS "employees", whom still have not grasped the concept.

should be

Nope, those silly things, coupled with those several low-level IRS "employees", who still have not grasped the concept.

since it is being used in the subjective sense not the objective.

It might also be helpful to point out that case is determined by the use of the pronoun within the dependent clause, and not the sentence itself.

For example, "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad" is correct, because "whom" is the object of "the gods would destroy" even though it modifies the "those" that is the subject of the sentence.

In TP's sentence, "who" is the subject of the phrase "still have not grasped" so "who" is correct and not "whom," even though the antecedent "employees" are the object of the preposition "with." The phrase "coupled with those who still have not grasped the concept" would also be correct, even though the preposition "with" normally takes the objective case, as in "the employees with whom I talked."

[LPC]

If you want to debate semantics, you are on the forum.

The proper use of "who" and "whom" is a question of grammar (or syntax), not semantics.

Although I must admit a debate on the proper use of the word "semantics" would be a debate about semantics.

[Cpt Banjo]

In TP's sentence, "who" is the subject of the phrase "still have not grasped" so "who" is correct and not "whom," even though the antecedent "employees" are the object of the preposition "with." The phrase "coupled with those who still have not grasped the concept" would also be correct, even though the preposition "with" normally takes the objective case, as in "the employees with whom I talked."

Sometimes even experts fall into this trap. One of my wife's former professors, a nationally-known authority on rhetoric, included a sentence (which I can't recall exactly) in one of his books that went along the lines of "History has given credit to whomever was first to publish the idea." Of course, the sentence should have read "History has given credit to whoever was first to publish the idea.", since the object of the preposition "to" is the entire clause "whoever was first to publish", and the subject of this clause is "whoever". This is easily seen if you diagram the sentence -- or is that a lost art?

[webhick]

This is easily seen if you diagram the sentence -- or is that a lost art?

Haven't diagrammed a sentence since tenth grade. And, to be honest, I only did it because that was the assignment. I run most of my grammar on whether or not something sounds or looks right. Which explains why any diagram of my sentence structure would look like someone gave a three-year old a crate of finger paints and a bong.

[Famspear]

[ . . . . ]"History has given credit to whomever was first to publish the idea." Of course, the sentence should have read "History has given credit to whoever was first to publish the idea.", since the object of the preposition "to" is the entire clause "whoever was first to publish", and the subject of this clause is "whoever".

Yeah, that particular class of error has always been like fingernails screeching across the chalkboard for me, when I hear it.

This is easily seen if you diagram the sentence -- or is that a lost art?

I remember my eighth grade Engish teacher -- the grammar nazi (a term I use affectionately in this context). She was great. I probably make a few grammar errors from time to time, but she was a wonderful influence on me. That, and just the love -- and habit -- of reading, reading, reading.

[mutter]

THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DAMN BOOK ALREADY LOST TWICE AND IS ABOUT TO GO TO JAIL????

lol, do you have personal issues that you frequently feel compelled to address during your group sessions?

Simple answer, we CtCers, if you have not noticed are evolving and omnipresent. Have you read PH’s briefs? He is going to stomp all over the whinny and desperate DOJ, his attorney is heading in the right direction.

ive read his briefs ones from this time and ones from before. they are pathetic. "My case should be dismissed cos the gov is picking on me" Good lord what a buffon. and as far as your self education yea I thought that two then i started on a paralegal course and learned how to do things correctly. and that 100% of what you are spewing is incorrect. Warped so it will fit into a square hole.
the logic of if its an excise there must be a federal nexus is a good place to start.
then more onto includes.

[Gregg]

Aside from the top drawer grammar lessons, careful study of this thread and the times of the postings can also be used to determine what time they let the children have free time. A little late in the day for studyhall, maybe they have internet access in detention? (of course, to really be sure I'd have to know what time zone our friend is in)

[Nikki]

PDT: Pete Disciple Time

[Gregg]

He is going to stomp all over the whinny and desperate DOJ, his attorney is heading in the right direction.

And yet, Pete hired a new attorney this week...

I saw that and wasn't sure if what I was reading (can't remember where) it right. I couldn't tell if he had a new on in addition to, or if he had let the old one go (or if she let him go which I thought more likely)
Is there any chance he can use this to get another delay?

[ASITStands]

... to really be sure I'd have to know what time zone our friend is in ...

Weston White's profile lists California as his location. Pacific Daylight Time.

It includes a link to a California Militia Forum.

[Red Cedar PM]

THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DAMN BOOK ALREADY LOST TWICE AND IS ABOUT TO GO TO JAIL????

lol, do you have personal issues that you frequently feel compelled to address during your group sessions?

Simple answer, we CtCers, if you have not noticed are evolving and omnipresent. Have you read PH’s briefs? He is going to stomp all over the whinny and desperate DOJ, his attorney is heading in the right direction.

Let's just wait and see how the criminal case turns out, shall we?

I see how you've conveniently declined to respond to Pete's other two losses in civil courts using CtC, so I ask again - why do you think you or anyone else will be successful using CtC when the guy who wrote the book has lost twice already in civil court?

[Nikki]

Pete's loss doesn't count because the Court imposed an unconstitutional requirement in its order.

The Court has demanded that Pete commit perjury by signing the jurat on a tax return where the return is NOT accurate according to Pete's knowledge of the facts it contains.

The court is ignoring Pete's irrefutable knowledge that only federal-nexus income is subject to taxation.

[The Observer]

Pete's loss doesn't count because the Court imposed an unconstitutional requirement in its order.

Wait a minute, I thought Pete's loss actually counted because it only proved how right he was about income not being taxable. The fact that Pete has lost twice is even more proof. In fact, I hear Pete is keeping his fingers crossed and hoping that he receives a criminal conviction in his current trial, which would be proof beyond proof of the accuracy of his legal analysis.

[mutter]

[quote="Nikki"]Pete's loss doesn't count because the Court imposed an unconstitutional requirement in its order.

Unconstitutional hmmm I dont recall it saying anything about signing anything, so thats another legal fallacy, now if the court had actually ordered an impossibility etc it would be against the rule of law not the constitutionThe Court has demanded that Pete commit perjury by signing the jurat on a tax return where the return is NOT accurate according to Pete's knowledge of the facts it contains.
the court barred him from a specific act whcih the court deemed incorrect. IE the court said CtC is wrong dont fill out your forms that way again. if he and them beleive thats perjury I would have to say they are not being 'reasonable persons' cos any reasonable person would have to admit the over whellming evidence that CtC has ZERO legal standing

The court is ignoring Pete's irrefutable knowledge that only federal-nexus income is subject to taxation. yea cos no court has specifically said a situation is not so. then again no court ever delcared the sun rises in the east and sets in the west either

[Famspear]

Modification of an old joke I stole from somewhere:

It is some date in the future, and Patrick Michael Mooney, Weston White, and Peter Hendrickson have passed on from this earthly existence. They stand together at the Pearly Gates of Heaven.

Saint Peter is standing at a rostrum, presiding over the Pearly Gates. An Angel stands in attendance.

Saint Peter: “OK, let’s see. First on the list. Call Patrick Michael Mooney.”

Angel: “Patrick Michael Mooney, step forward.”

(Mooney steps forward.)

Saint Peter (flipping through several pages of documents on the rostrum): “OK, let's see. You participated in the Cracking the Code tax scam, and you produced cheesy videos of Pete Hendrickson. Before we can even consider you for admission to Heaven, you have to do penance. Your penance is to run all the way to that cloud and run back to here, and you better do it quickly."

(Saint Peter points to a cloud about five miles away. Mooney gulps, takes a deep breath, and takes off running.)

Saint Peter: OK, let’s see. Who’s next? Ah, Weston White. Call Weston White.”

Angel: "Weston White, step forward.”

(Weston steps forward.)

Saint Peter (flipping through an even larger stack of documents): “Ah, let’s see now. According to the records, you also participated in the Cracking the Code scam. As a grown man, you also engaged in childish behavior, such as setting up web sites for something called a ‘Tyrannical Response Team,’ here:

http://defendindependence.org/Forum/trt ... -t398.html

and something called the Californian Coyotes State Militia Corps:

http://calmilitia.us/Forum/

and at this web page here:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/profi ... ile&u=3476

--you listed your ‘occupation’ as being “Kicking IRS scum Ass’. Before we can even consider you for admission to Heaven, your penance is to run all the way to that cloud over there, and run back to here. And I mean, make it quick."

(Saint Peter points to a distant cloud, about fifteen miles away. Weston White gulps, sighs, and takes off running.)

Saint Peter now pulls out three large dollies, all loaded down with large boxes, crammed with documents. Saint Peter looks around: “Now, where’s Hendrickson?”

The Angel: “Oh, he went back to Earth to get his car."

[mutter]

From the lost Horizons news letter. i thought you all would enjoy cracking the nut
there is also his petition to the SCOTUS! follow the link in the newsletter. http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or woman to declare to be true and correct to the best of his or her own knowledge and belief, over his or her own signature, particular words and other explicit testimony dictated and/or specified by the court or government agency, and which he or she does not, in fact believe to be true and correct;the court ordered you to stop doing something not to do something, so this is a fallacy

2. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or woman to stand silent in the face of testimony made by others which is about, or which affects, him or her, or to compel an American man or woman to adopt such testimony made by others as his or her own, when that American man or woman believes that testimony made by others to be erroneous or false; What hes really asking is can i use a 4852 to rebut a w-2 or 1099? Rebutting I think needs to include some substantive evidence to support your position. merely saying no its not doesnt fly

3. Can the federal courts grant summary judgment to the United States-- on its own motion, in a suit which it has brought seeking to assert a claim to the property of an American man or woman-- by unilaterally construing all material-fact-related assertions of the movant United States to be true, and by disregarding or construing to be false all of the contradictory assertions of the non-movant American man or woman; sure can when your arguments have all been deemed nonsense. this is his they didnt address my argument or they miscontrued my arguement
4. Can the federal courts issue federal tax-related injunctions despite the provisions of the Declaratory Act, permit litigation barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel as enunciated in Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanction an American man or woman for appealing judicial decisions purporting to do all of the above.
[bhuh? where does the declartory Act come in? res judicata already adjudicated? Yes Ph your arguments have already been adjudicated and deemed nonsense. Collateral estoppel? WTF is he talking about? How in the world does he thing collateral estoppel was invoked when there was no contract involved? I ll have to review collateral estoppel, or one of the lawyers can chime in, but i dont see how its involved here][/b]

[ASITStands]

Just an observation: I believe he's used the wrong font.

The rules say, "The text of every booklet-format document, including any appendix thereto, shall be typeset in a Century family (e. g., Century Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or Century Schoolbook) 12-point type with 2-point or more leading between lines."

Rule 33, pg. 45

There's also a rule on the size of the paper. It appears his does not comply.

Pete Hendrickson, and his 'Cracking the Code' cronies, are smarter than the rest of us!

[Famspear]

A user at losthorizons called "bettyroug54" writes:

Help: All my efforts to try to make the IRS see that my 2006 and 2007 returns are not frivolous have bombed and blew up in my face. Now I have a 6702 (a) for tax year 2006 and one will be coming shortly for 2007 for another 5000.00. What do I do now? I need help fast! Thanks.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1534

Sure, Betty! Some of the black powdery residue on your face -- from the bomb that resulted from your falling for Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam -- consists mainly of carbon, and can be removed with ordinary facial cleansers. Same with the gunk in your hair. Be careful around the eyebrows and eyes, of course. Don't use anything really caustic.

Ordinary cleaners won't get it all, though. May I suggest a specific product?

It's the Quatloos Stupidity Remover, and it's available in small, medium, large, and even extra-large if (as I suspect) you're really a mess. Comes in your choice of powder, liquid, or gel. Also, your choice of colors: Red, blue, green, and of course "Weston White."

EDIT: Betty, I'm sorry, I've just been informed that the "Weston White" version of the product is restricted -- it's sold only to grown men with childish fantasies about "Tyrannical Response Teams."