And the last Quatpillar hath given away!

[Weston White]

ABRACADABRA
ABRACADABR
ABRACADAB
ABRACADA
ABRACAD
ABRACA
ABRAC
ABRA
ABR
AB
A


ABRAC -- 7
A -- 11

ABRA+A = ABRA
(7+11)=18 [6+6+6=18]
A=1 B=2 R=18 A=1 + A=1 (22+1=23)
[(2*3=6), 23==32, (2+3=5)||(3+2=5) [The Law of Fives], 23*3=69, 32*3=96, 2/3=.666...7]

... And the bad power of the Quatloosian hath at last been repealed ...

[Famspear]

It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution ...

Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?

Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word [sic] indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or[,] if they had[,] they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider).

And the cases have already been "considered." Over and over and over. They may be new to you, but they're not new to many of us who have studied this nonsense for years.

Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916 [sic] ... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise [sic] from you all... sure, sure.

No, not "pointless comments." Just comments that expose your own foolishness, Weston. Yes, it's painfully obvious that you are lost. It's painfully obvious that you are scaping the barrel for "evidence" -- including the supposed "acclaimed IRS memo."

By the way, on the year of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a typo, and you meant "1913," not "1916".

About LH, actually I am glad that I was banned, because now I do not have to deal with responding to crap like the XIV and UCC Arguments, which seems to be a majority of the postings there. In being forced to leave LH, I have finally dived off the CtC platform and am venturing out on my own into the core argument of it all, which is to say comprehending the proper forms of taxation.

You are diving into still more crap, Weston.

[Lambkin]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it

Get used to the feeling! It's going to happen more and more as you pursue your strategy. What happens if the IRS ignores all your gibberish and puts a saddle on your back? Sounds like losing to me.

[Weston White]

Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?

Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word [sic] indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.[/quote]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or[,] if they had[,] they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider).

And the cases have already been "considered." Over and over and over. They may be new to you, but they're not new to many of us who have studied this nonsense for years.

Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916 [sic] ... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise [sic] from you all... sure, sure.

No, not "pointless comments." Just comments that expose your own foolishness, Weston. Yes, it's painfully obvious that you are lost. It's painfully obvious that you are scaping the barrel for "evidence" -- including the supposed "acclaimed IRS memo."

By the way, on the year of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a typo, and you meant "1913," not "1916".

About LH, actually I am glad that I was banned, because now I do not have to deal with responding to crap like the XIV and UCC Arguments, which seems to be a majority of the postings there. In being forced to leave LH, I have finally dived off the CtC platform and am venturing out on my own into the core argument of it all, which is to say comprehending the proper forms of taxation.

You are diving into still more crap, Weston.

ROFLMAO, This is me actually contemplating why I even reply to Famspear's posts???

[Weston White]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it

Get used to the feeling! It's going to happen more and more as you pursue your strategy. What happens if the IRS ignores all your gibberish and puts a saddle on your back? Sounds like losing to me.

I realize this. What you say is so very true and rightfully so because there is no defense against it. This strategy scraps all the misconceived reliance of the IRC and bases itself solidly in origination. It leaves the Quatlost on their knees begging for forgiveness of their sins.

[Famspear]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it

Get used to the feeling! It's going to happen more and more as you pursue your strategy. What happens if the IRS ignores all your gibberish and puts a saddle on your back? Sounds like losing to me.

I realize this. What you say is so very true and rightfully so because there is no defense against it. This strategy scraps all the misconceived reliance of the IRC and bases itself solidly in origination. It leaves the Quatlost on their knees begging for forgiveness of their sins.

Zzooom zzoom zzooooooommmmmmmmm!

Off we go to Planet Weston!

[Famspear]

PS: Weston, recheck your posting two steps back. You put the quotation codes in the wrong places. Also, the first quote (the one about the moot point) was not a comment from me; it was from another poster.

[Famspear]

In fairness, I must say that Weston White's ramblings here at Quatloos are not completely useless. I have known for a long time that PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson is a liar -- but I never realized, until this very day, that Hendrickson was also a chickenhead!!

[Weston White]

PS: Weston, recheck your posting two steps back. You put the quotation codes in the wrong places. Also, the first quote (the one about the moot point) was not a comment from me; it was from another poster.

And who said it wsa from you? Oh that's right, it was you. Good job reading buddy... as usual of course

[Weston White]

In fairness, I must say that Weston White's ramblings here at Quatloos are not completely useless. I have known for a long time that PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson is a liar -- but I never realized, until this very day, that Hendrickson was also a chickenhead!!

Yup, and now you have been schooled a bit as well in the distinctions between direct taxation and indirect taxation... Who knows soon you might even actually come to realize your CPA means ditty squat zip zero nada.

[Famspear]

In fairness, I must say that Weston White's ramblings here at Quatloos are not completely useless. I have known for a long time that PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson is a liar -- but I never realized, until this very day, that Hendrickson was also a chickenhead!!

Yup, and now you have been schooled a bit as well in the distinctions between direct taxation and indirect taxation... Who knows soon you might even actually come to realize your CPA means ditty squat zip zero nada.

Oh, Weston, yes, please -- teach me, teach me. Oh, please take me with you to Weston World!!!!!

[Famspear]

PS: Weston, recheck your posting two steps back. You put the quotation codes in the wrong places. Also, the first quote (the one about the moot point) was not a comment from me; it was from another poster.

And who said it wsa from you? Oh that's right, it was you. Good job reading buddy... as usual of course

No, Weston, here's the quote:

Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?

That wasn’t me; that was posted by “LDE”.

Good job reading, buddy -- as usual, of course.

You do seem to have a problem keeping things like “who wrote what” straight in your mind. But then, considering that you didn’t know that the Lucas v. Earl “quotation” was by Mr. Earl, the taxpayer, and was not from the text of the Supreme Court’s opinion, I’m not surprised.

Take your vitamins, kid.

[Imalawman]

Please see signature...

I say, if Weston wants to think he won, let him. It will probably be the only fun thing that happens to him a long time....We warned you Weston, over and over again. Get ready for one hell of a bad time. And for what reason I don't really know, but if ever do have a "come to Jesus" moment, we'll be here to help.

[Famspear]

......We warned you Weston, over and over again. Get ready for one hell of a bad time. And for what reason I don't really know, but if ever do have a "come to Jesus" moment, we'll be here to help.

That goes for me, too, Weston. I tease you and give you a hard time, but you can always ask for help if you need it.

[jkeeb]

I don't know what you attorney's could do for WW. $110K in penalties. I guess you could write up an offer and hope some overworked RO gets it.

[Imalawman]

I don't know what you attorney's could do for WW. $110K in penalties. I guess you could write up an offer and hope some overworked RO gets it.

I was just trying to be nice...who knows what Weston has screwed up? He could at least lower the bill, establish a collection plan...I don't know, penalties are tough to get rid of.

[Imalawman]

I don't know what you attorney's could do for WW. $110K in penalties. I guess you could write up an offer and hope some overworked RO gets it.

Are you implying that some RO's aren't?

[Lambkin]

In fairness, I must say that Weston White's ramblings here at Quatloos are not completely useless. I have known for a long time that PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson is a liar -- but I never realized, until this very day, that Hendrickson was also a chickenhead!!

Does that mean Weston is Mike the Headless Chicken? I know I'll be depressed when Weston splats but I can't look away.

[Famspear]

I don't know what you attorney's could do for WW. $110K in penalties. I guess you could write up an offer and hope some overworked RO gets it.

I was just trying to be nice...who knows what Weston has screwed up? He could at least lower the bill, establish a collection plan...I don't know, penalties are tough to get rid of.

Yeah, I have been able to get the IRS to waive some pretty good sized penalties, but they were on "failure to timely file", "failure to timely pay" -- that sort of thing. I have never had a client with section 6702 ("frivolous") penalties, and I don't recall ever trying to get such a high amount ($110,000) waived. Still, an interesting challenge...

[jkeeb]

Are you implying that some RO's aren't?

Not if they are doing the job right.