Practical advice for Hendrickson's Heroes

[The Operative]

ShadowKat09,

There is only one concept that you need to learn...when a court says a person is wrong about the law and all appeals of that decision say the person is wrong about the law, then that person is wrong about the law. It is really that simple.

Now for the important part...NO COURT THAT MATTERS HAS EVER SAID THAT PETE HENDRICKSON OR HIS THEORIES ARE RIGHT. In fact, every court has said that Pete Hendrickson is wrong. That means that he is wrong. I guarantee that any court case that Pete quotes is either taken out of context or, in some cases, the quotes are not found in the actual court decision. You need to read the ruling of the sixth circuit on Pete Hendrickson's appeal...http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson_app37.pdf

[Dr. Caligari]

Am I to understand that you believe that the only thing that matters in the case of law is NOT the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves, but rather what those who interpret them say that they mean??

Well then, let's start with "the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves." The 16th Amendment to the Constitution says that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived." According to Hendrickson, the only incomes that can be taxed are those that come from working for the federal government. How is that following "the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves"? Or, to put it differently, what part of "from whatever source derived" don't you understand?

[wserra]

I haven't read Hendrickson's book. I have, however, read his own accounts of what the book says, mainly in court papers he wrote or filed, and also on his web site. Given his own description of the arguments it contains, I no more need to read the book than I need to examine the ravings of someone who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine. In each case, the claim itself means that the details are nonsense.

And it does not matter if our perpetual-motion chochem cites Newton, Galileo or Einstein. If he does, his conclusion proves that he miscites them. No more "analysis" is needed.

[Famspear]

Meanwhile, back in the wackadoo world of losthorizons, user "mnryan" writes:

I not sure about [fellower poster] Hang 'Em, but Im pretty sure that Patrick [poster Patrick Mooney] has taken a few punches and is still in the mist [sic] of a current battle (outcome pending I believe).. I think most people in here are all in the same war, just different battles.

By "mist," he probably meant "midst." Although "mist" is more accurate -- as in the mist of a FOG -- which is the environment in which those clowns operate.

I'm going into my fourth year but have been studying for about 10 years.. I think I've looked into just about every wack theory there is out there in that time. It wasn't until I studied and became CTC educated that it all kind of came together......

-bolding added-

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... dcdc#24106

For the umpteenth time, we see this: These clowns hop from one wackadoo theory to another, to another, to another, to another, to find a "legal" way to "not owe" federal income tax. This guy admits to having done this supposed "study" for ten years.

This is not intellectual honesty. This is not "study." This is not a search for "Truth." This is starting from the acceptance of an anti-tax conclusion that these dimwits are determined to embrace, and following that conclusion with a persistent search for something - anything - that will "support" the conclusion, and rejecting everything that denies that conclusion. Everything authoritative (i.e., the actual court rulings) that blow the conclusion away are simply falsely rejected as somehow being the product of a "corrupt court", etc., etc., etc. No federal court has ever accepted Hendrickson's scam; every single federal court that has been presented with his scam has rejected it. Every single time. No exceptions.

[Harvester]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth. That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government. Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss . The Income Tax is (largely) a scam. Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

[LPC]

bmielke – I am currently enrolled in a college Logic course,

Which only means that you'll soon be able to reach incorrect conclusions in more sophisticated ways.

and we are actually about to be tested on logical fallacies. I am sorry to inform you that three out of four of your “facts” are identifiable fallacies.

If you were really studying logic, you would know that logic does not determine the truth or falsity of facts, but the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. If I say, "The sun is shining," there is no amount of "logic" that can tell you whether that statement is true.

All of the statements that bemielke made are true enough. The only thing that *might* be fallacious is his conclusion based on those statements.

“A” and “D” are what is known as the False Authority fallacy. You are saying that, since certain people who should know a lot about this subject have said certain things about it, they must be right. However, WHO says something makes no difference whatsoever.

You might want to do some more studying, because I think that the fallacy occurs when the authority is a *false* authority, and that it DOES make a difference WHO says something.

Witness A says "I know he did it because I saw him do it."

Witness B says "I know he didn't do it because he was my college roommate for two semesters 10 years ago and I know that he's just not the kind of person who would do something like that."

It's certainly not a fallacy for a court (or jury) to believe A and disregard B.

It is the FACTS that must speak with the most weight.

What is or is not a "fact" is a conclusion that is drawn from evidence, and the source of the evidence is a factor that is given great weight.

That 100% of all judges who have read Hendrickson's arguments have said that he is wrong is good evidence that Hendrickson is (in fact) wrong.

“B” makes use of Ad Hominem circumstantial, which implies that what the arguer says can be discounted, merely based on his/her current situation, rather than what he/she is saying.

You're ignoring the possibility that the arguer's current situation might be relevant to the truth of what the arguer is saying.

Someone who claims to be able to walk on water while crawling out of the ocean soaking wet should be treated skeptically.

Hendrickson claims to know what "the law" is, and yet his arguments about "the law" have been rejected in both of the cases in which he has been a party, as well as in numerous other cases in which his followers have been parties. That is not an "ad hominem" attack, because the truth is that his arguments have failed. If someone claims to have built an anti-gravity device and is killed when the device drops like a rock, that is hardly an "ad hominem" attack.

“C”, although not technically a fallacy, still seems somewhat…exaggerated to me. I highly doubt that “hundreds” of people have been sued over it, since I know only of six cases of that nature. If you know of more, though, please direct me to that information.

Well, if *you* think it's an exaggeration, then it probably is.

However, you seem to have overlooked bmielke's use of the word "or." (If you don't know what "or" means, you might want to take a course of logic.)

bmielke said that hundreds of people have been sued "or at least gotten friv. pens." for using Hendrickson's theories. Considering that Hendrickson claims more than $10,000,000 in refunds, which would require hundreds, if not thousands of tax refund claims, and that the IRS could impose hundreds of frivolous return penalties by identifying only a fraction of those returns, the claim does not seem exaggerated to me.

You say you know of "only of six cases" in which people have been sued for following Hendrickson's theories. But didn't the government win all six cases? Doesn't that suggest anything to you?

Please focus on this issue in order to distract from the shortcomings of everything else you wrote.

LPC – I myself have read incredibly boring introductions to countless fascinating books, so I should think that not only can one not judge a book by its cover, but can also not judge it by its introduction.

No matter how ridiculous the introduction might be?

If you picked up a math book that started with the statement that 2 + 2 = 5, wouldn't you be suspicious of at least the proofreading?

(And I was wrong, by the way. It was not an introduction that was posted on Hendrickson's website. It was Chapter 1.)

I also happen to know that Mr. Hendrickson cites law and court cases in his book to support his argument. Please explain to me, then, how these can be completely tossed out the window, so to speak.

Because the laws and court cases that Hendrickson cites don't mean what he claims they mean. (I will write more on this later.)

Or do you believe that, because Hendrickson says that a law or case says or means something, then it must say or mean what Hendrickson says? (I think that there's a name for that; something I read recently.)

I would also like to note that the charge upon which Mr. Hendrickson WAS indicted had more to do with whether he believed what he said on his tax forms, rather than what was actually on them. At least, as far as my research tells me.

In order to convict Hendrickson, the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (A) the returns that Hendrickson filed were false and (B) Hendrickson *knew* that they were false. And the jury found that both A and B were true.

Do you really believe that A could be a crime without B, or that B could be a crime without A? That filing a return that is false could be a crime even if done mistakenly and in good faith? Or that a return filed in bad faith could be a crime even if it turned out that the return was accurate and correct?

Good luck with that logic class, by the way, because I think you're going to need a lot of luck to pass.

[The Operative]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth. That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government. Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss . The Income Tax is (largely) a scam. Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

In any argument over what a law means or what is intended by the lawmakers, who decides what is the law or the correct interpretation? Do you? Does Hendrickson? Does anyone else here? NO. The final arbiters of what a law means or says are THE COURTS. For the past few days, you have been trumpeting what you believe is a movement to restore America to the Constitution. Well, here is a clue for the clueless...the power of the judicial system to rule on what a law means or says IS a fundamental tenant of our form of government. You, and others like you, who think they know how the government is supposed to work, really do not know squat. The simple fact is, the law is what the courts rule the law to be. The courts have consistently ruled that an income tax on the compensation paid to a worker is Constitutional and always has been.

[LPC]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth.

No, not "truth."

However, courts are at least the initial arbiters of what the law is and what the law means. And, once the opinions of the courts are accepted and ratified by other courts, those opinions become the reality of what the law really is.

An example from my personal experience: Shortly after the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was passed, I wrote an article in which I expressed an opinion about what a particular section of that Act meant. Later, several court decisions reached a different conclusion, and the IRS eventually promulgated a regulation that conformed to those decisions, and which was contrary to what I believed (and still believe) the statute said (and still says, by the way).

So who was "right" about what the statute meant? My article was an opinion, but the court rulings were facts. I can still argue that my view was the better view, and that the courts should have agreed with me, but I can no longer argue about what the law actually is, because the court rulings and IRS regulations have solidified a legal reality that may be different from what I expected but is very real and very legitimate notwithstanding my expectations. If I were to speak to a group of lawyers today about the legal issue I wrote about back then, I could not say I was right for the same reason I could not say that slavery is legal or that racial segregation can be the same as equal. By giving the rulings the courts have given, the courts have effectively changed the law and changed reality, and I do not ignore that.

Hendrickson does. He ignores the reality of what the law is, and continues to claim that his ideas about what the law should be are the same as what the law actually is.

[Famspear]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth. That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government. Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss . The Income Tax is (largely) a scam. Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

No, your position is bankrupt -- logically, legally, and morally. How many ways are there to say this? I didn't just make this up with some buddies in study hall one day. What's wrong with you, anyway?

We have a legal system in the United States. It has rules. One of those rules is that the law is what courts rule the law to be. This rule is embodied in the doctrine of judicial precedent. The basic legal concept is stare decisis. The United States came from what were originally English colonies. The law of the colonies, like the law of the mother country, was English common law. English common law is judge-made law, also known as case law.

Case law. The aggregate of reported cases as forming a body of jurisprudence, or the law of a particular subject as evidenced or formed by the adjudged cases, in distinction to statutes and other sources of law. See Common law.

--Black's Law Dictionary, p. 196 (5th ed. 1979).

Common law. [ . . . ] the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action [ . . . ] which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts [ . . . ] and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

--Black's Law Dictionary, p. 250-251 (5th ed. 1979).

'Common law' consists of those principles [ . . . ] which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.

--Black's Law Dictionary, p. 251 (5th ed. 1979).

Harvester, this is not "my argument," and it's not "bankrupt." Our legal system was set up long before our great-great grandparents were born. What's the matter with you, anyway?

No, this does not presuppose that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth. This is not a "search for truth," fella. The function of the court (meaning, specifically, the judge) is to interpret the law -- not find the "truth."

You really think that federal tax trials are "carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government"??????? Do you have any idea of what you're talking about? No, you don't.

Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss . The Income Tax is (largely) a scam. Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax

Gee, where have I heard this before? You're getting away with criminal activity -- therefore, you conclude that "the law" is somehow the scam, and that you, the scammer, are enlightened? Yes, this is what passes for logic with you people.

The government drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss? Do you copy and paste from airheads on tax protester web sites, or do you just make this garbage up as you go along?

What rubbish!

[Nikki]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth. That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government. Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss . The Income Tax is (largely) a scam. Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

So, you're either a candidate for a criminal tax evasion charge or, more likely, earning less than the minimum required to fie a tex return.

In either case, "I pity the fool."

[Pottapaug1938]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth.

Hey, Dimwit -- they ARE.That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government.

Hey, Dimwit -- if you'd made it through even the first year of law school, you'd have seen many cases where the government LOSES. Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss .

Hey, Dimwit -- see my last remark.

The Income Tax is (largely) a scam. Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

Say hi to all your new pals in the Graybar Hotel when the feds catch up with you.

[LPC]

I also happen to know that Mr. Hendrickson cites law and court cases in his book to support his argument. Please explain to me, then, how these can be completely tossed out the window, so to speak.

As I explained above, the laws and court cases that Hendrickson cites don't mean what he claims they mean.

Chapter 1 of Hendrickson's book can be read on his website. I decided not to try to pick the "worst" example, but just examine the the first court decision he cites.

The first court decision he cites is a decision I have never read before, United States v. Bevans, and here is what Hendrickson writes (and I have to retype this because Hendrickson blocks anyone from copying from what he writes):

All other areas within the union [not described in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution] are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the several States, and are thus insulated from federal authority except in regard to certain enumerated powers, and federal governmental property and contract rights. As was declared by counsel for the United States before the Supreme Court in United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336 (1818):

"The exlusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exlusive therein,"

with the court, in its ruling agreeing:

"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory;"

I don't know what counsel to the United States declared to the Supreme Court, but I can read the opinion of the Supreme Court, and it tells me some things that Hendrickson never mentions:

1. The exact question presented by the case was whether the federal courts in Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the trial of a man accused of a murder on board a U.S. Navy vessel anchored in Boston harbor. (So the case had nothing to do with taxes.)

2. Although the court made the statement that Hendrickson quotes above, about the jurisdiction of states within their territories, the court also stated that:

That a government which possesses the broad power of war [which the federal government possesses]; which "may provide and maintain a navy;" [which Congress may do under Article I, section 8, clause 13] which "may make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," [which Congress may do under Article I, section 8, clause 14] has power to punish an offence committed by a marine on board a ship of war, wherever that ship may lie, is a proposition, never to be questioned in this court. On this section, as on the 8th, the inquiry respects, not the extent of the power of congress, but the extent to which that power has been exercised.

In other words, the Supreme Court had no doubt but that Congress could enact laws that would punish (and try) someone who committed a crime on a naval vessel even if that vessel were in Boston harbor, and otherwise within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.

3. As can be seen from the quote above, the question decided by the Supreme Court in Bevans is not "the extent of the power of congress, but the extent to which that power has been exercised." The court was "construing the act of congress" that gave to the federal courts "cognisance of certain offences committed on the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state." Because the offense was committed on a federal vessel in Boston Harbor and was therefore (according to the court) within the jurisdiction of the courts of Massachusetts, the statute did not apply and (according to the Supreme Court's understanding of the statute) the federal courts had no jurisdiction, but only because Congress had not granted the federal courts any jurisdiction.

But the most important thing that Hendrickson never mentions is something that is not in Bevans and has nothing to do with Bevans. In the first part of what I quoted above, Hendrickson claims that the areas of "the union" that are outside of the District of Columbia and the forts and dock-yards described in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution are "insulated from federal authority except in regard to certain enumerated powers." The "enumerated powers" of Article I, section 8, include the power to tax. In fact, the power to tax is the very first of the powers granted to Congress in Article I, section 8.

How did Hendrickson happen to fail to mention that?

Hendrickson wrote a book about the federal income tax, and started with a chapter on federal power under the Constitution, and that chapter fails to mention that Congress is explicitly given the power to tax under the Constitution?

That might not be lying, but it is certainly misleading, and appears to be deliberately misleading.

[grixit]

ShadowKat09:

This course in logic, you're taking: is it about boolean logic? Prepositional logic? Basic set theory? Truth tables? All of those were in the courses i took as a computer science major. It's also what math and engineering students take.

But legal reasoning isn't about things that can be run through a bunch of AND, OR, and NOT gates. It involves the older logic, the kind first seen in Aristotle and later utilized by medieval theologians. It's about things like necessary and proximate causes, categories, etc. You want to follow a legal argument, it helps to be studying that kind of logic.

And of course you have read far enough to learn if it conviced a judge.

[Harvester]

haha, Look what crawls out at night! Y'all make me laugh. oooo 'Graybar Motel' 0h I'm really scared now.. You guys got nothing, you never move off script; your fraud will soon be exposed. Watcha gonna do then ?

We have a legal system in the United States.

Yes. And where would I go to view the LAW system? Because all I've seen is the corporate/equity/contract dispute resolution system in the United States.

YES I'M BAAACK !

http://losthorizons.com

[wserra]

Your "no court has ever .." argument is bankrupt. It presupposes that courts are the ultimate arbiters/adjudicators of truth.

As others have written, courts are not "ultimate arbiters of truth". I don't know any "ultimate arbiters of truth". Courts are, however, ultimate arbiters of law - unless overruled legislatively, which has happened on many occasions. BTW, if the courts are so wrong about the meaning of the IRC, why hasn't Congress corrected them? It could, with the figurative stroke of a pen, since the application of the tax laws is almost never a constitutional issue.

That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government.

They aren't, any more than any other type of trial. If you disagree, please prove it.

Should the outlook change for the worse, the gov drops the case to avoid embarrassment or possible loss .

Just like any other kind of case.

The Income Tax is (largely) a scam.

So you say. Perhaps one day circumstances will bring home to you that your words don't constitute proof.

Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

Likely because you, like most of your colleagues, are a [ChrisRock]BAMF[/ChrisRock].

[bmielke]

bmielke – I am currently enrolled in a college Logic course, and we are actually about to be tested on logical fallacies. I am sorry to inform you that three out of four of your “facts” are identifiable fallacies.
“A” and “D” are what is known as the False Authority fallacy. You are saying that, since certain people who should know a lot about this subject have said certain things about it, they must be right. However, WHO says something makes no difference whatsoever. It is the FACTS that must speak with the most weight.
“B” makes use of Ad Hominem circumstantial, which implies that what the arguer says can be discounted, merely based on his/her current situation, rather than what he/she is saying.
“C”, although not technically a fallacy, still seems somewhat…exaggerated to me. I highly doubt that “hundreds” of people have been sued over it, since I know only of six cases of that nature. If you know of more, though, please direct me to that information.

I will add to each of my points.

A. The Only tax experts I know post here, I have seen no evidence in 6 months of posting and lurking to demonstrate anyone is not as they claim they are.

B. He went to trial, where I do not believe he ever even presented his arguments as a defense, I thought he went with the Cheek Defense. He was found guilty. So if he had a winning argument he should have presented it.

C. I have no idea how many civil suits have been filed or will be filed. I think 100 is a lowball number. I do know that a Frivilous Penality seems to be a badge of honor over at LH so I think there have certainly been hundreds of those.

D. The IRS is charged with collecting taxes, I will listen to them before I listen to a convicted felon.

Ask Blowhardmiester about his Mail Bombing troubles from the 1990's, then you tell me if this is the kind of guy you should listen to anything about.

[bmielke]

PS Shadowkat09

In case you can't tell with your fancy logic class, CTC is a sinking ship, I freely admit to not finishing college but even I can see that at this point it would take a true idiot to get involved. Now I can understand people like Mooney and others who have so much invested in believing the lie, but if you are a college student, you have an entire life ahead of you that can be ruined by your little foray into CTC. David Merrill was a college student once look how he has turned out, if you are a traditional college student, DMVP has been doing this stuff longer then you have been alive, he is now homeless and poor.

[LPC]

That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government.

An academic study of Tax Court results concluded that the Tax Court was biased in favor of taxpayers, and not the government, because it tended to rule in favor of the taxpayer in cases with legitimate legal and factual disputes.

See Maule, James Edward, “Instant Replay, Weak Teams, and Disputed Calls: An Empirical Study of Alleged Tax Court Judge Bias,” 66 Tenn.L.Rev. 351 (1999), Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2001-5. The abstract:

This article summarizes and analyzes empirical data collected in an effort to determine if there is underlying justification for allegations that the United States Tax Court is biased against taxpayers. After reviewing the history of the debate as it appears in legal literature, the article describes the Tax Court and its procedures. The article develops a new methodology for dealing with the issue, by abandoning the traditional case-by-case analysis and instead analyzing each issue decided by the Court. Four hundred thirty cases, providing the opportunity for 1,327 issue decisions, were explored to determine the extent to which bias opportunity exists. To measure bias existence, 407 deteminations in the areas of reasonable compensation, estate tax valuation, and charitable contribution valuation were studied. Taxpayer prevalence scores were calculated for each judge and for the Court. The existence of alleged correlation between a judge's taxpayer prevalence score and the judge's background was studied. Other corroborative findings, rebutting the allegations of bias, are discussed. The article concludes that the Tax Court is not biased in favor of the IRS, and might be biased in favor of taxpayers. The article demonstrates that a judge's background does not predict the outcome of issues in terms of taxpayer or IRS prevalence.

[David Merrill]

That tax trials aren't carefully controlled to ensure a favourable outcome for the government.

An academic study of Tax Court results concluded that the Tax Court was biased in favor of taxpayers, and not the government, because it tended to rule in favor of the taxpayer in cases with legitimate legal and factual disputes.

See Maule, James Edward, “Instant Replay, Weak Teams, and Disputed Calls: An Empirical Study of Alleged Tax Court Judge Bias,” 66 Tenn.L.Rev. 351 (1999), Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2001-5. The abstract:

This article summarizes and analyzes empirical data collected in an effort to determine if there is underlying justification for allegations that the United States Tax Court is biased against taxpayers. After reviewing the history of the debate as it appears in legal literature, the article describes the Tax Court and its procedures. The article develops a new methodology for dealing with the issue, by abandoning the traditional case-by-case analysis and instead analyzing each issue decided by the Court. Four hundred thirty cases, providing the opportunity for 1,327 issue decisions, were explored to determine the extent to which bias opportunity exists. To measure bias existence, 407 deteminations in the areas of reasonable compensation, estate tax valuation, and charitable contribution valuation were studied. Taxpayer prevalence scores were calculated for each judge and for the Court. The existence of alleged correlation between a judge's taxpayer prevalence score and the judge's background was studied. Other corroborative findings, rebutting the allegations of bias, are discussed. The article concludes that the Tax Court is not biased in favor of the IRS, and might be biased in favor of taxpayers. The article demonstrates that a judge's background does not predict the outcome of issues in terms of taxpayer or IRS prevalence.

That is why nobody who redeems lawful money has any problems.

[The Observer]

That is why nobody who redeems lawful money has any problems.

Sure they do: they don't collect on their impotent UCC filings, they end up in jail for creating and passing phony documents, they lose suits to motor scooters and they spend money for court filings and never get results.