Weston White on Frivolous Penalties (split from gottago's topic)

[Weston White]

Clearly the IRS is not only being willfully ignorant and holds zero understanding as to the distinctions between such heads of taxation it is teaching its lies by targeting this crap at young juveniles. Pathetic.

"Young juveniles"... as opposed to old juveniles. WW would know all about that. Here's the deal for the umteenth time. Nobody but you and perhaps Steve care whether the income tax is direct or indirect. It simply does not matter. The distinctions you think are so important are simply historical artifacts and they do not matter. You can maintain how important they are all you want but as Steve has told you... you will lose. Nobody cares what the founders thought about the income tax... they didn't have one. Nobody cares what Adam Smith said. Nobody cares what you think. What you don't seem to get is that you may be having a simply marvelous time playing on the railroad track but guess what... the express train is going to be coming through soon and you are going to end up as a bug on the windshield.... no matter what you say

Where did SteveSy tell me this now? Do you not know how to read?

The fact that you say this does not matter and that does not matter, shows your ignorance and obtuseness, your ineptness. So no further point in addressing you.

Only to say that it is important because the income tax CANNOT EVER BE something that is another class of tax, such as the capitation tax, furthermore XVI Amendment incomes has a distinct and special meaning already defined in law [the Act of 1909], this limits what the income tax can be in the United States of America.

Though it bothers me that you hold absolutely no regard or value in the Constitution, that much is obvious. So I think you should board a plan and move your sorry bum to another country, perhaps China would like to have you as a member in their cabinet? That is until they get sick of your crap to and haul you off in one of their Assassination Donation Mobiles (ADM).

[Weston White]

And no I was never a PH devotee,

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/profi ... ile&u=3476
All about Weston White
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Total posts: 1229
[10.10% of total / 3.76 posts per day]

Uh huh. Not a devotee or anything.

ROFL.

Do you not understand the difference between being a student of CtC and being a fan of PH himself? Sort of like because I look a movie does not mean I like the all or most of the actors and actresses within that movie? CtC holds many truths, while PH holds many lies and deceptions.

[Duke2Earl]

You don't even bother to read Steve's posts, do you? In the "Quatpiller" thread he says...

"SteveSy wrote:
As far as wining in court I've always said that's not going to happen. There is no doubt any attack on the constitutionality of the income tax will fail. Its clear to me that if one court can claim its constitutional because its a direct tax which no longer requires apportionment due to the 16th and another say its really an excise and not a direct tax and both courts claim the other argument is frivolous then its obvious no matter what you argue its going to lose."

And I do believe in the Constitution... just I believe in the way the courts' interpret it... not the way you do. Whatever.... he's the deal. You are obviously an idiot. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve.

[Weston White]

You don't even bother to read Steve's posts, do you? In the "Quatpiller" thread he says...

"SteveSy wrote:
As far as wining in court I've always said that's not going to happen. There is no doubt any attack on the constitutionality of the income tax will fail. Its clear to me that if one court can claim its constitutional because its a direct tax which no longer requires apportionment due to the 16th and another say its really an excise and not a direct tax and both courts claim the other argument is frivolous then its obvious no matter what you argue its going to lose."

And I do believe in the Constitution... just I believe in the way the courts' interpret it... not the way you do. Whatever.... he's the deal. You are obviously an idiot. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve.

Again, where did SteveSy say this as you had claimed: "The distinctions you think are so important are simply historical artifacts and they do not matter"? I read his post and that is not what he meant. He was saying the courts are in conflict with each other, therefore the issue, as in arguing it one way or the other is all together moot, because not even the courts are able to agree with one another, not that what I think or he things does not matter. If he really thought that it was all pointless, why would he have bothered to have racked up 9,000 posts on your forum alone?

The higher courts have interpreted the Constitution just fine, it is the lower courts that are in conflict with those higher and not with the Constitution, the lower courts view the law as written, without beckoning the Constitution and Congressional Reports to determine the actual intention of the law they are reviewing and ultimately that is where the problem lies. However, there are no constitutional issues with the income tax to content, the only issue is the misapplication of the income tax itself.

[Weston White]

You are obviously an idiot. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve.

Goodness, I truly do hope so, and I hope that wrath, when it arrives to you, comes at you with a relentless vengeance and indignation!

[Arthur Rubin]

Here go ahead and take this test:

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp

From this website:

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp

Clearly the IRS is not only being willfully ignorant and holds zero understanding as to the distinctions between such heads of taxation it is teaching its lies by targeting this crap at young juveniles. Pathetic.

Actually, would someone help me on this. I need the context of why anyone would care, and I can't find the other lessons.

[Famspear]

Here go ahead and take this test:

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp

From this website:

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp

Clearly the IRS is not only being willfully ignorant and holds zero understanding as to the distinctions between such heads of taxation it is teaching its lies by targeting this crap at young juveniles. Pathetic.

Actually, would someone help me on this. I need the context of why anyone would care, and I can't find the other lessons.

I suspect that Weston White is excited about this page, because the test "answers" show that the IRS, on this page, is not using the term "direct tax" in the constitutional law sense. Weston may be thinking that since the IRS is not using the term "direct tax" on that page to mean capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership, that somehow Weston shouldn't have to pay federal income tax on his private sector non-federally privileged compensation.

But that's a guess on my part. Who knows......

[Weston White]

NOTICE, This actually belongs in this thread: http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 0&start=15

Received two more CP15 letters today (one for each of us) with another $5000 penalty for me and a $10000 penalty for husband, again for frivolous submissions for tax year 2004. These are not duplicates of the previous ones. Total of $25,000 in penalties in a single week. Have no idea what is going on...will attempt to contact the taxpayer advocate Monday.

All of this serves only to prove that this is being done entirely through automation, there is no review, no authoritative oversight, no IRS employees to hold accountable, it is a sham, a spiteful and petty shell game. There is a recent thread about this on LH, it appears that still to date, not a single person has received any actual levying of anything, only unsigned letters and notices… OP, do you seriously not wonder why the CP15 you have no signatures on them, no IRS agent case worker contact information on the notice?

See: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1735

In fact, over the course of the last two years only two individuals, so far that I am aware, have actually been levied and both of them admitted that they do receive payments from the federal government one was for disability and the other from social security/retirement; and to further note one of those individuals never bothered to rebut the IRS with even a single response they instead ignored all of the letters and notices and refused to sign for what they thought was the CP15 notice, which the USPS brought to his home. And there have been dozens upon dozens of us CtCers that have received IRS notice and letter, after IRS notice and letter.

Watch, do a FOIA for your required tax assessment and for the penalty or charge approval, the IRS will be entirely unable to provide them to you, this is because it is being done through a computer mailing program without any legal authority whatsoever! They just hope you will get scared and submit unto them, on your own voluntarily.


See:
4.10.1.5.3.2 (05-14-1999)
Written Communication
1. All taxpayer correspondence should be clear, concise, and professional, as well as adhering to legal requirements.
2. All correspondence should also strive to meet the needs of the taxpayer.
3. Where possible, all correspondence with taxpayers should be prepared using standard forms and letters, since the specific language in these documents has been approved for general use.
4. All correspondence must contain an employee name, contact telephone number, employee identification number, and signature. (See 1.6.9 below for more information).
5. Any original correspondence prepared by examiners should be approved by the group manager and such approval should be documented in the case file. If correspondence is not individually approved, managers must develop some type of ongoing review process to ensure the quality of correspondence
6. Groups should maintain read files of all taxpayer correspondence that does not use form letters.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch09s01.html#d0e126352

And IRM 4.8.9.8.1 for notices of deficiency: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch07s08.html#d0e112859


In accordance with 26 USC 6065:

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/sear ... -000-.html

See the Quatloosians believe this to mean only taxpayers, however, it makes no specific mention of taxpayers, the only distinction in this section is what is required by the IRC and Regulations (and as you can see by the IRM the Secretary has made it a requirement for IRS employees to sign, have approved, and include employee contact information within their letters and notices), and it uses the word ANY, that means everything and anything by everybody, it is a global application, this is in Subtitle F, which is the administrative enforcement for all of 26 USC as applicable through the Parallel Table Of Authorities and Rules.

You will also notice in reading the various threads on this forum that the Quatloosian holds the viewpoint that when the IRC serves to benefit the IRS agenda, it is all inclusive, even when in discord with established legal doctrine; though whenever there is a section that actually serves to benefit or protect the rights of the "taxpayer" or individual, it is extremely limiting or inapplicable. Clearly, they are here to push their agenda at all costs and to any degree of ludicrousness, even while holding the stance that they fight the IRS all the time and disagree with the many aspects of the IRS... Even a blind man is tuned well enough to see and avoid that that large pile of manure.

Though as you should be already know, use your own good judgment and common sense of course, and you may very well actually have a percentage of taxable income, only you know that for sure though.

P.S. For some extra fun, you can always call up the IRS and ask them what class of tax you are liable under for whatever tax year and you will sense their utter confusion over the telephone. As they will not have a clue what you are even talking about. Daaaauuhhhh... the income tax... or something? Oooohhhh... you're one of those tax protesters... "I am not going to argue that with you!" Quit picking on me or I am going to hang up on you! Stop, the voices, you are confusing me!!! StOp! StOp iT! Aggggghhhhh! I can't take it the voices, the voices!! Agggghhhh!!! laff

[Weston White]

Here go ahead and take this test:

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp

From this website:

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp

Clearly the IRS is not only being willfully ignorant and holds zero understanding as to the distinctions between such heads of taxation it is teaching its lies by targeting this crap at young juveniles. Pathetic.

Actually, would someone help me on this. I need the context of why anyone would care, and I can't find the other lessons.

I suspect that Weston White is excited about this page, because the test "answers" show that the IRS, on this page, is not using the term "direct tax" in the constitutional law sense. Weston may be thinking that since the IRS is not using the term "direct tax" on that page to mean capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership, that somehow Weston shouldn't have to pay federal income tax on his private sector non-federally privileged compensation.

But that's a guess on my part. Who knows......

Here are the other lessons:
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... t/whys.jsp
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... t/hows.jsp

There is only one way for the government to use these terms and that is as meant by the Constitution. No other way is acceptable. Therefore either the IRS is outright lying or they have no understanding of these foundational principles. It is called fraud, de facto, color of law, conspiracy, treason, etc.

Found this yesterday, pretty neat:

Copy Of A Paper Communicated To James Madison By Col. Hamilton, About The Close Of The Convention In Philadelphia, 1787, Which, He Said, Delineated The Constitution Which He Would Have Wished To Be Proposed By The Convention. He Had Stated The Principles Of It In The Course Of The Deliberations.

Art. VII.

Sec. 4. Taxes on lands, houses, and other real estate, and capitation taxes, shall be proportioned, in each state, by the whole number of free persons, except Indians not taxed, and by three fifths of all other persons.

[Famspear]

All of this serves only to prove that this is being done entirely through automation, there is no review, no authoritative oversight, no IRS employees to hold accountable, it is a sham, a spiteful and petty shell game. There is a recent thread about this on LH, it appears that still to date, not a single person has received any actual levying of anything, only unsigned letters and notices… OP, do you seriously not wonder why the CP15 you have no signatures on them, no IRS agent case worker contact information on the notice?

Setting aside the questions oversight, review, etc., and of whether the notices must be signed, etc., I would reiterate what others have already explained in other places: an "actual levy" would be the actual seizure or distraint. I haven't researched the topic, but it appears that CtC user "kesiroveki" claims to have had an actual levy (in the form of distraint, apparently) because of a section 6702 frivolous penalty. He/she claims that the IRS collected the penalty by keeping his/her withholding tax.

See the two posts by "kesiroveki" at
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... ght=#15431

In fact, over the course of the last two years only two individuals, so far that I am aware, have actually been levied and both of them admitted that they do receive payments from the federal government one was for disability and the other from social security/retirement; and to further note one of those individuals never bothered to rebut the IRS with even a single response they instead ignored all of the letters and notices and refused to sign for what they thought was the CP15 notice, which the USPS brought to his home. And there have been dozens upon dozens of us CtCers that have received IRS notice and letter, after IRS notice and letter.

I don't know what the "kesiroveki" situation was, though.

Watch, do a FOIA for your required tax assessment and for the penalty or charge approval, the IRS will be entirely unable to provide them to you, this is because it is being down through a computer mailing program without any legal authority whatsoever! They just hope you will get scared and submit unto them, on your own voluntarily.

That's your opinion. And yet, no one to my knowledge has ever won in court on that argument.

See:
4.10.1.5.3.2 (05-14-1999)
Written Communication
1. All taxpayer correspondence should be clear, concise, and professional, as well as adhering to legal requirements.
2. All correspondence should also strive to meet the needs of the taxpayer.
3. Where possible, all correspondence with taxpayers should be prepared using standard forms and letters, since the specific language in these documents has been approved for general use.
4. All correspondence must contain an employee name, contact telephone number, employee identification number, and signature. (See 1.6.9 below for more information).
5. Any original correspondence prepared by examiners should be approved by the group manager and such approval should be documented in the case file. If correspondence is not individually approved, managers must develop some type of ongoing review process to ensure the quality of correspondence
6. Groups should maintain read files of all taxpayer correspondence that does not use form letters.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch09s01.html#d0e126352

And IRM 4.8.9.8.1 for notices of deficiency: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch07s08.html#d0e112859

That's the Internal Revenue Manual, Weston. It's not generally legally binding on the IRS in dealings with taxpayers.

In accordance with 26 USC 6065:

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/sear ... -000-.html

See the Quatloosians believe this to mean only taxpayers, however, it makes no specific mention of taxpayers, the only distinction in this section is what is required by the IRC and Regulations (and as you can see by the IRM the Secretary has made it a requirement for IRS employees to sign, have approved, and include employee contact information within their letters and notices), and it uses the word ANY, that means everything and anything by everybody, it is a global application, this is in Subtitle F, which is the administrative enforcement for all of 26 USC.

And, as you may know, Weston, the reason Quatloosians "believe" this to mean only taxpayers is that this is precisely what the courts have ruled. I don't have the citation in front of me, but at this point I doubt that providing it would do any good anyway.

You will also notice in reading the various threads on this forum that the Quatloosian holds the viewpoint that when the IRC serves to benefit the IRS agenda, it is all inclusive, even when in discord with established legal doctrine; though whenever there is a section that actually serves to benefit or protect the rights of the "taxpayer" or individual, it is extremely limiting or inapplicable.

You will also notice in reading the various threads that when Weston White holds a viewpoint, it is always against the Quatloos viewpoint. What a surprise. And yet, the Quatloosian viewpoint is essentially a reporting of what the courts have actually ruled, while the Weston White viewpoint is nothing more than Weston's interpretations and rantings.

Clearly, they [the Quatloos regulars] are here to push their agenda at all costs and to any degree of ludicrousness, even while holding the stance that they fight the IRS all the time and disagree with the many aspects of the IRS... Even a blind man is tuned well enough to see and avoid that that large pile of manure.

Clearly, Weston has not helped a single person (including himself) in his fights with the IRS. And just as clearly, Weston has his own "agenda." And just as clearly, many of us here have been representing people in their dealings with the IRS for many years, and obtaining many victories. Yet we do so without resort to the criminal activity or to the use of frivolous arguments on tax returns and in courts.

Yes, Weston, I for example have an "agenda." My agenda is to have fun. This is a hobby for me, in case you haven't figured it out yet. Nothing I do here affects my source of income -- which is in part the representation of taxpayers -- not the representation of the IRS.

And, I suspect, for at least some of the people here who do work for the IRS or other government agencies, there is little if anything here that they do that affects their jobs. Not everyone who works for the government here is necessarily feeding everything to the tax collector or criminal investigation division.

I think it's funny, by the way, that you went ballistic and zoomed off to "Weston World" over my comment about my PDFing certain web pages here. I admit that I'm a tax geek. What else do you want me to say? The government wouldn't need my help or my PDF copies to nail you, Weston, if that's what the government wants to do.

[Famspear]

Oops, I just realized that by responding to Weston here, I may be leading us off track again. Not my intent.

[Famspear]

There is only one way for the government to use these terms and that is as meant by the Constitution. No other way is acceptable.

Baloney. You don't make the rules, Weston. The IRS can use legal terms in more than one way -- just as the statutes use legal terms in more than one way -- just as the courts use legal terms in more than one way.

Therefore either the IRS is outright lying or they have no understanding of these foundational principles.

Unlikely they're "lying", Weston. Somebody at the IRS who wrote the test or its answers might indeed not have understanding of foundational, constitutional law principles on taxation -- or they might, and were just using the terms to mean other things. At any rate, your argument gets you nowhere.

It is called fraud, de facto, color of law, conspiracy, treason, etc.

Baloney.

Found this yesterday, pretty neat:

Copy Of A Paper Communicated To James Madison By Col. Hamilton, About The Close Of The Convention In Philadelphia, 1787, Which, He Said, Delineated The Constitution Which He Would Have Wished To Be Proposed By The Convention. He Had Stated The Principles Of It In The Course Of The Deliberations.

Art. VII.

Sec. 4. Taxes on lands, houses, and other real estate, and capitation taxes, shall be proportioned, in each state, by the whole number of free persons, except Indians not taxed, and by three fifths of all other persons.

Yeah, and I just happen to notice that this interpretation is pretty much what the courts have ruled is the definition of "direct tax" for constitutional law purposes. Taxes on real estate, and capitations. And nowhere does this text say that an income tax in any manner form or shape is a "capitation" or "other direct tax."

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Paul]

Here's the deal for the umteenth time. Nobody but you and perhaps Steve care whether the income tax is direct or indirect. It simply does not matter. The distinctions you think are so important are simply historical artifacts and they do not matter. You can maintain how important they are all you want but as Steve has told you... you will lose.

Where did SteveSy tell me this now? Do you not know how to read?

Duke2Earl wrote:
You don't even bother to read Steve's posts, do you? In the "Quatpiller" thread he says...

"SteveSy wrote:

As far as wining in court I've always said that's not going to happen. There is no doubt any attack on the constitutionality of the income tax will fail. Its clear to me that if one court can claim its constitutional because its a direct tax which no longer requires apportionment due to the 16th and another say its really an excise and not a direct tax and both courts claim the other argument is frivolous then its obvious no matter what you argue its going to lose."

And I do believe in the Constitution... just I believe in the way the courts' interpret it... not the way you do. Whatever.... he's the deal. You are obviously an idiot. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve.

Again, where did SteveSy say this as you had claimed: "The distinctions you think are so important are simply historical artifacts and they do not matter"?

There you have it, all in one thread. Proof positive that WW simply cannot read with any comprehension.

[wserra]

Oops, I just realized that by responding to Weston here, I may be leading us off track again.

Not any more.

[Judge Roy Bean]

He's on the ignore list, but if y'all get a chance, bring him this side of the Pecos.

I've seen even less lucid drunkards who suddenly become upright members of society with proper motivation.

[Weston White]

A. Famspear's post is simply outright retarded, so I am not going bother responding to it. For by Famspear's own hand, it is clear exactly where Famspear's deficiencies lie.

B. Again what you stated was not what SteveSy wrote, not even close, so no need for me to restate anything to you, I made myself perfectly clear in my initial response to your silliness.

C. I finally got around to compiling a PDF from Black's Law Dictionary [3rd. Edition], it includes all relative tax terms and it can be viewed for yourselves first hand here: http://defendindependence.org/OIF/BLD.PDF

D. That is all, end of story. Checkmate, goodnight.

[Weston White]

NOTICE, this is the proper thread for this reply, just because you are Quatloosian and are incapable of dealing with facts, well, that is your issue, not mine, nor the OP's.

Received two more CP15 letters today (one for each of us) with another $5000 penalty for me and a $10000 penalty for husband, again for frivolous submissions for tax year 2004. These are not duplicates of the previous ones. Total of $25,000 in penalties in a single week. Have no idea what is going on...will attempt to contact the taxpayer advocate Monday.

All of this serves only to prove that this is being done entirely through automation, there is no review, no authoritative oversight, no IRS employees to hold accountable, it is a sham, a spiteful and petty shell game. There is a recent thread about this on LH, it appears that still to date, not a single person has received any actual levying of anything, only unsigned letters and notices… OP, do you seriously not wonder why the CP15 you have no signatures on them, no IRS agent case worker contact information on the notice?

See: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1735

In fact, over the course of the last two years only two individuals, so far that I am aware, have actually been levied and both of them admitted that they do receive payments from the federal government one was for disability and the other from social security/retirement; and to further note one of those individuals never bothered to rebut the IRS with even a single response they instead ignored all of the letters and notices and refused to sign for what they thought was the CP15 notice, which the USPS brought to his home. And there have been dozens upon dozens of us CtCers that have received IRS notice and letter, after IRS notice and letter.

Watch, do a FOIA for your required tax assessment and for the penalty or charge approval, the IRS will be entirely unable to provide them to you, this is because it is being done through a computer mailing program without any legal authority whatsoever! They just hope you will get scared and submit unto them, on your own voluntarily.


See:
4.10.1.5.3.2 (05-14-1999)
Written Communication
1. All taxpayer correspondence should be clear, concise, and professional, as well as adhering to legal requirements.
2. All correspondence should also strive to meet the needs of the taxpayer.
3. Where possible, all correspondence with taxpayers should be prepared using standard forms and letters, since the specific language in these documents has been approved for general use.
4. All correspondence must contain an employee name, contact telephone number, employee identification number, and signature. (See 1.6.9 below for more information).
5. Any original correspondence prepared by examiners should be approved by the group manager and such approval should be documented in the case file. If correspondence is not individually approved, managers must develop some type of ongoing review process to ensure the quality of correspondence
6. Groups should maintain read files of all taxpayer correspondence that does not use form letters.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch09s01.html#d0e126352

And IRM 4.8.9.8.1 for notices of deficiency: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch07s08.html#d0e112859


In accordance with 26 USC 6065:

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/sear ... -000-.html

See the Quatloosians believe this to mean only taxpayers, however, it makes no specific mention of taxpayers, the only distinction in this section is what is required by the IRC and Regulations (and as you can see by the IRM the Secretary has made it a requirement for IRS employees to sign, have approved, and include employee contact information within their letters and notices), and it uses the word ANY, that means everything and anything by everybody, it is a global application, this is in Subtitle F, which is the administrative enforcement for all of 26 USC as applicable through the Parallel Table Of Authorities and Rules.

You will also notice in reading the various threads on this forum that the Quatloosian holds the viewpoint that when the IRC serves to benefit the IRS agenda, it is all inclusive, even when in discord with established legal doctrine; though whenever there is a section that actually serves to benefit or protect the rights of the "taxpayer" or individual, it is extremely limiting or inapplicable. Clearly, they are here to push their agenda at all costs and to any degree of ludicrousness, even while holding the stance that they fight the IRS all the time and disagree with the many aspects of the IRS... Even a blind man is tuned well enough to see and avoid that that large pile of manure.

Though as you should be already know, use your own good judgment and common sense of course, and you may very well actually have a percentage of taxable income, only you know that for sure though.

P.S. For some extra fun, you can always call up the IRS and ask them what class of tax you are liable under for whatever tax year and you will sense their utter confusion over the telephone. As they will not have a clue what you are even talking about. Daaaauuhhhh... the income tax... or something? Oooohhhh... you're one of those tax protesters... "I am not going to argue that with you!" Quit picking on me or I am going to hang up on you! Stop, the voices, you are confusing me!!! StOp! StOp iT! Aggggghhhhh! I can't take it the voices, the voices!! Agggghhhh!!! laff

[Weston White]

I don't know what the "kesiroveki" situation was, though.

“I’ve learned this the hard way. When I first started I was unsure how to respond, wasn't
aware of this forum and did not answer several letters.” – Kesiroveki

That's your opinion. And yet, no one to my knowledge has ever won in court on that argument.

No it is fact, I know from personal experience, I have dozens upon dozens of NULL and unfulfilled FOIA requests. As well do dozens of CtCers as they have reported on LH and in the state Warrior groups. If the IRS/DOJ is unable to provide the court with the exact figures (even in a court of law) as to what you are due back or what you owe in total to the government for a given tax year, that the case should be promptly thrown out of court and the prosecution should be reprimanded for waiting the courts time. Knowing the precise figures is a requisite in any money based case. If the IRS has not established or has failed to establish the proper authority to charge a fine or penalty on an individual the above should also apply. In all actions, either administrative, civil, or criminal there has to be procedure and responsibility on both ends.

That's the Internal Revenue Manual, Weston. It's not generally legally binding on the IRS in dealings with taxpayers.

HELLO! HELLO! It is in accordance with 26 USC 6065 and yes if the IRS violates their very own procedures they can be held accountable… the same as if police, fire, or ambulance violate their own departmental procedures and cause undue hardships in the process (example if an officer of the law violates procedure and views another's private record without first establishing any cause in order to obtain an associated address as an effort to find me, because I am say an outstanding criminal and they or another officer responds to that address, makes entry and arrests me, solely because of that information they had wrongfully obtained, that officer has broken a related law or say if an officer has a friend that has a suspicion about somebody so that officer looks up information as a favor to them, that officer has broken a related law). Ergo, THE IRS IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAW JUST AS I AM, JUST AS YOU ARE, YOU TWIT! PEOPLE OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE NEVER AN EXCEPTION, NOT EVEN THE CIA.

And, as you may know, Weston, the reason Quatloosians "believe" this to mean only taxpayers is that this is precisely what the courts have ruled. I don't have the citation in front of me, but at this point I doubt that providing it would do any good anyway.

Gee, not even with all of your handy PDF's? The IRC applies to agents of the government as it applies to "taxpayers", nowhere is there a statute making them some special exception.

Clearly, Weston has not helped a single person (including himself) in his fights with the IRS. And just as clearly, Weston has his own "agenda." And just as clearly, many of us here have been representing people in their dealings with the IRS for many years, and obtaining many victories. Yet we do so without resort to the criminal activity or to the use of frivolous arguments on tax returns and in courts.

Actually I have helped many, I have received many thank you while at LH and I receive many emails asking for help and giving me thanks.

Sure, you do this all day for a living and so you can’t wait till you get home just to it some more… oh sure, sure, what a very excellent hobby there mister. As well if this is such a hobby for you than way are most of your posts, nothing more than juvenile responses? Which I still find it very odd that you all or most of you anyways, are able to respond to posts so quickly throughout the "work" day. If you were really working and going to court and taking trips around the world, planning fashionable parties, and racing around in your expensive race cars, and whatnot as you mental defects all claim you do, your rapid reply posts and swooning over LH and goodness knows whatever other sites would be impossible.

And what I find both amazing and funny is that you think the government is going to use forum posts to prove their case against me or anybody else. Short of me making direct threats to government officials, your assertions are just avoid of all reason

[wserra]

NOTICE, this is the proper thread for this reply

No, it wasn't. And I am no more inclined to "debate" this issue with you than I am inclined to "debate" tax issues with you. As you have seen, unlike the board run by your former friend and mentor, this board allows you to say what you wish. If you think that you have the right to say what you wish wherever you wish to say it, though, you need to start your own board.

A poster (here gottago) should have the ability to seek real advice without having her thread cluttered by nonsense and refutations to nonsense. If you think that gottago deserves the incalculable benefit of your advice, start your own thread, perhaps titled "Weston Blathers to gottago". Post whatever you want there. Then she is free to ignore you, AS OTHER QUATLOOSIANS SHOULD DO.

[Weston White]

HoNka, HoNka!!