941 REFUND on LH

Post by **grixit** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:43 am

That's out of bounds.

silversopp · Post by **silversopp** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:27 pm

John J. Bulten wrote: Did anyone stop to consider that Pete would perform due diligence before posting such an earth-shattering amount? I would expect he has received evidence that this refund is due to a lawful claim.

It's not like Pete's has done something completely insane like put a bomb in the mail that hurt a postal worker. And of course he would verify the evidence beforehand, it's not like he's making money off this CtC thing by selling it to mental defects like John J. Bulten. After all, Pete is called a guru, and gurus are always full of integrity!

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:38 pm

John J. Bulten wrote: Did anyone stop to consider that Pete would perform due diligence before posting such an earth-shattering amount? I would expect he has received evidence that this refund is due to a lawful claim.

No one here did. But I did laugh out loud when I read due diligence and Pete in the same sentence.

Maybe he lost creditability after not taking down the refunds that were later taken back with interest and penalties by the IRS. He's a con artist of the worst kind.

Post by **webhick** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:46 pm

Hey, did anyone else notice that the 941's in question have two different tax ID numbers?

91-16
91-18

They also appear to addressed differently (the "18" has a shorter second line blacked out than the "16" notices, probably because one address ends in "PRES").

Post by **Quixote** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:55 pm

Did anyone stop to consider that Anonymous is an old hand with tax protest ...

Yes, although you clearly have not. An old hand at tax protest would not associate with a blatent tax evader such as PH. An old hand at tax evasion would not deposit $384,130.54 for four different employing entities just so he could file claims for refund.

Did anyone stop to consider that Anonymous is practically daring the IRS to prosecute him, given the 12-digit zip and half the EIN ... ?

Half the EIN? Yeah, that narrows it down to only 100,000 entities. If brave Sir Anon wanted to challenge the IRS, why didn't he show his name?

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:44 pm

silversopp wrote:
Doktor Avalanche wrote:
silversopp wrote:David,

Do you have a picture of all this "lawful money" that you've been redeeming?
As soon as he Photoshop's the latest batch, he'll be right with you.
He talks about redeeming FRNs into "lawful money" and then shows a court case where the judge ruled him an imbecile as proof. I don't understand where he is coming from.

If I claim that I can take a personal check and redeem it for FRNs, I would be able to demonstrate that. I would be able to show the FRNs.

So what does he think is "lawful money"? And where on earth will he be able to purchase anything with this "lawful money"?

That he'll never say. I've been pressing him on that issue and he's not been forthcoming. My guess would be those worthless "liberty dollars" that I've been hearing about - the kind only redeemable in Montana and only by militia men.

Agent Observer · Post by **Agent Observer** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:48 pm

On the other hand, I'm sure that those nice Montana militia men are more than happy to redeem his "lawful money".

Only if you consider "lawful money" to be basic toiletries and cigarettes that you are allowed to "redeem" FRN's for a the prison canteen.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:50 pm

Agent Observer wrote:
On the other hand, I'm sure that those nice Montana militia men are more than happy to redeem his "lawful money".
Only if you consider "lawful money" to be basic toiletries and cigarettes that you are allowed to "redeem" FRN's for a the prison canteen.

Prison! Hmmm...I wonder why Van Pelt's not been thrown under one yet.

Post by **The Observer** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:08 pm

Doktor Avalanche wrote:
Agent Observer wrote:
On the other hand, I'm sure that those nice Montana militia men are more than happy to redeem his "lawful money".
Only if you consider "lawful money" to be basic toiletries and cigarettes that you are allowed to "redeem" FRN's for a the prison canteen.
Prison! Hmmm...I wonder why Van Pelt's not been thrown under one yet.

He was...for passing phony documents.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:55 pm

The Observer wrote:
Doktor Avalanche wrote:
Agent Observer wrote: Only if you consider "lawful money" to be basic toiletries and cigarettes that you are allowed to "redeem" FRN's for a the prison canteen.
Prison! Hmmm...I wonder why Van Pelt's not been thrown under one yet.
He was...for passing phony documents.

I was hoping for a more permanent arrangement.