David L. Miner

[Nikki]

Both of those links, as well as all of Harvester's other sources, are developed with the same "logic."

The author does not want to pay income taxes and decides to justify not doing so.

The author ignores specifics within the written laws such as the definition of "includes"; decides that "for the purpose of this chapter" is irrelevant; pushes aside many years of relevant court decisions but mines non-apposite decisions for phrases that sound good or quotes dissenting opinions or briefs of losing parties; discards common-language usage of terms such as income in order to construct his own definitions; and piles this all up with pseudo-legalistic gibberish to make it impressive.

He then can sell it to functional illiterates or other comerades in evasion.

Harvester sees all of this happening, realizes what's going on, but can't -- at the risk of destroying his entire value system -- admit that his emperors have no clothes.

[Famspear]

Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist is using David Zuniga as a source for the law again.

This is the same David Zuniga who claimed to believe that a notice of lien cannot be legally recorded unless it is accompanied by an abstract of judgment - an abstract of a court judgment. Zuniga is as clueless as Harvester.

Hey, Harvester, here's a riddle: When you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, does the bank, as part of the loan process, sue you and obtain a judgment against you when the bank records the deed of trust in the county property records?

Because that's what the bank would have to do if Mr. Zuniga were correct about the recording of a notice of lien. Zuniga wasn't talking about the bank's lien on your house, of course; he was talking about federal tax liens. But his doofus theory does not work for the lien on your house, and it doesn't work for federal tax liens either.

Harvester, the cluelessness of people like you -- and David Zuniga -- is a recurring source of entertainment.

[Famspear]

Actually I'm thinking of starting a thread on David M. Zuniga, since he does have his own tax scam going (or at least his own scam web site).

David M. Zuniga is a real fumbduck. This is the same David M. Zuniga who apparently thought that the certified public accountant designation is issued by the Internal Revenue Service.

[Harvester]

Famspire, No. The borrower is not in default at the point of borrowing. Questions regarding Mr. Zuniga's claims should really be addressed to him. When you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank uses your signature on the promissory note, to create new currency in the amount of your loan via the Federal Reserve system (sometimes called "creating money from thin air"). Therefore the bank has not loaned you anything of theirs (substance) but has loaned you the monetary expansion you just enabled them to create. Over the life of loan they will collect more in interest than the currency you just helped them create. This is fraud in any other setting, but Congress calls it modern banking.

[Cathulhu]

Harv said--

Famspire, No. The borrower is not in default at the point of borrowing. Questions regarding Mr. Zuniga's claims should really be addressed to him. When you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank uses your signature on the promissory note, to create new currency in the amount of your loan via the Federal Reserve system (sometimes called "creating money from thin air"). Therefore the bank has not loaned you anything of theirs (substance) but has loaned you the monetary expansion you just enabled them to create. Over the life of loan they will collect more in interest than the currency you just helped them create. This is fraud in any other setting, but Congress calls it modern banking.

I'd call this purest fantasy. You really need to pay your rent on that castle in the clouds you're living in.

[Harvester]

Second, the merits of Hendrickson's CtC scam HAVE been adjudicated -- in a civil tax proceeding involving Hendrickson himself, and in other civil tax proceedings involving some of his followers.

Regarding the civil lawsuit against the Hendricksons and a handful of others, in addition to the comments on this found toward the top of this page, see http://www.losthorizons.com/lawsuit.htm. Read it all, carefully, taking particular note of the current Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment for the years for which Hendricksons were "sued" on which it will be seen that even the feds don't pretend that they ever owed any tax for those years.

[.]

the bank uses your signature on the promissory note, to create new currency in the amount of your loan

That idiocy is even more delusional than the gibberish you propound regarding income taxation.

I'd direct you to a basic text on fractional-reserve banking, but there's no point. You seem to exist mentally in a place very similar to the conditions on Planet Van Pelt.

Oh, geez, I almost forgot. Good luck with your shirt in DC.

[LPC]

Do tell:
What is a "revenue-taxable activity" ? (Is it defined in the law? )

Oh yes. Mr. Zuniga includes them in his exhaustive list of "facts" concluding with:

"47. In the calendar year specified above, to the best of my knowledge I did not engage in any activity regulated under authority of Title 27 of the United States Code."

That's not a definition; that's a conclusion.

And Title 27 is "Intoxicating Liquors," which is suggestive of where you get your reasoning skills, but not really relevant to the federal income tax.

Let me put it a different way: What evidence do you have, in the form of statutes, regulations, or rulings, that section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code does NOT mean what it says when it defines "gross income" as ALL income from WHATEVER source derived? You want to insert "taxable activity" in the place of "source," but that's not what the statute says.

[Famspear]

Famspire, No. The borrower is not in default at the point of borrowing. Questions regarding Mr. Zuniga's claims should really be addressed to him. When you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank uses your signature on the promissory note, to create new currency in the amount of your loan via the Federal Reserve system (sometimes called "creating money from thin air"). Therefore the bank has not loaned you anything of theirs (substance) but has loaned you the monetary expansion you just enabled them to create. Over the life of loan they will collect more in interest than the currency you just helped them create. This is fraud in any other setting, but Congress calls it modern banking.

You're missing the point. You're the one who referred to David Zuniga's web site. And I have not asked any questions regarding Zuniga's web site. I illustrated the point that your source, Mr. Zuniga, is not reliable. It is no answer for you to say that "questions regarding Mr. Zuniga's claims should really be addressed to him." You're the one relying on Mr. Zuniga's analysis, not I. You're the one who needs to be asking him questions.

You went off on a tangent regarding banking. Stay focused on the point. The point is that Zuniga thought that a notice of lien had to be backed up by an abstract of judgment. He was wrong. He is not reliable as a source on legal matters.

And neither is Peter Hendrickson.

You keep citing people like David Zuniga and Peter Hendrickson. That tells me that you're not really serious.

[Gregg]

Famspire, No. The borrower is not in default at the point of borrowing. Questions regarding Mr. Zuniga's claims should really be addressed to him. When you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank uses your signature on the promissory note, to create new currency in the amount of your loan via the Federal Reserve system (sometimes called "creating money from thin air"). Therefore the bank has not loaned you anything of theirs (substance) but has loaned you the monetary expansion you just enabled them to create. Over the life of loan they will collect more in interest than the currency you just helped them create. This is fraud in any other setting, but Congress calls it modern banking.

Gee, if they create the money out of thin air, maybe that couple hundred billion that was lost in CDOs isn't really gone. We'll be rich!

[Gregg]

Neither of those links tell me what is "revenue-taxable activity".

getting someone to give you money or something of value for something you did, the first little bit is a freebie, the big bucks have a higher rate.

[Famspear]

Second, the merits of Hendrickson's CtC scam HAVE been adjudicated -- in a civil tax proceeding involving Hendrickson himself, and in other civil tax proceedings involving some of his followers.

Regarding the civil lawsuit against the Hendricksons and a handful of others, in addition to the comments on this found toward the top of this page, see http://www.losthorizons.com/lawsuit.htm. Read it all, carefully, taking particular note of the current Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment for the years for which Hendricksons were "sued" on which it will be seen that even the feds don't pretend that they ever owed any tax for those years.

First, it's "Famspear," not "Famspeare."

Second, YOU need to read the linked material carefully, taking particular note of the fact that the nothing in the alleged certificate of assessment indicates that "the feds don't pretend" that the Hendricksons owed tax for those years.

The lack of a positive assessed amount in the IRS account for a given taxpayer for a given year is evidence that the tax has not been assessed. That is quite a different proposition from saying that the feds don't claim that someone owes a tax. Harvester, you obviously don't understand how this stuff works.

Let's set Hendrickson's case aside for a moment.

When the IRS issues a statutory notice of deficiency against you, there is at that point no assessment of the income tax. So, the record of assessment at that point would show "zero" tax. That doesn't mean that the IRS isn't asserting that you owe the tax.

Similarly, when the IRS files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case for a tax that has not yet been assessed, the IRS account for that tax would also show no tax assessed. That doesn't mean that the IRS isn't asserting that you owe the tax.

[Nikki]

He won't get it. Both the concepts and the words are too big for him.

[Famspear]

He won't get it. Both the concepts and the words are too big for him.

And he doesn't want to get it. Like virtually all other tax protesters, Harvester strains to find anything that he feels could support his position, and he refuses to accept the statutes, the regs, and the court decisions that contradict his position. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Harvester's apparently implied position is pretty close to the tax protester argument that there can be no legal duty to pay a federal income tax unless the tax has already been assessed. And, of course, that is false. See also Internal Revenue Code section 6151(a).

[Gregg]

How about the possibility that he's just trying to be an asshole, and he doesn't even believe this stuff himself. I mean, few people are really that stupid.

[bmielke]

How about the possibility that he's just trying to be an asshole, and he doesn't even believe this stuff himself. I mean, few people are really that stupid.

I have been thinking along those lines since the License to Drive thread. Well over 100 posts wherein Wserra, Myself, and Prof. kept linking statutes (and possibly others), and Prof. offered cases and he just kept arguing his point.

[The Operative]

How about the possibility that he's just trying to be an asshole, and he doesn't even believe this stuff himself. I mean, few people are really that stupid.

I believe that he is one of the few.

[Cathulhu]

hoo doo that haiku...

Harvester wants to
put hands over ears, yell la la
when given the truth.

Hey, it's classier than a limerick, and I'm not as good at those as someone else here.

[Famspear]

How about the possibility that he's just trying to be an asshole, and he doesn't even believe this stuff himself. I mean, few people are really that stupid.

Based on edits I have seen Harvester make (using the handle of "Nationwide" at losthorizons, and as "johnthetaxist" at another web site), I also agree that this is a distinct possibility.

It's as though he "sort of" believes the nonsense, but his belief is half-hearted.

Example, at losthorizons, a Wackadooster called "liberty" wrote:

Pete will not be going to prison.....He will remain a free man. Warriors get you plenty of can goods, water and personal items and stack them up. We have won this race and when this info is exposed, we will be rejoicing. As a matter of fact I am already rejoicing. Don't worry about what the IRS is doing, they will be gone away shortly and all these troubles everyone is having will be gone. I will give you more info later.

Keep the faith and trust God

To which Harvester ("Nationwide") responded:

Amen Brother! I too believe.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2520

It's hard to tell whether Harvester just believes anything and everything that is clearly preposterous, or whether his comment was intended to be semi-tongue in cheek.

Similarly, when Harvester predicted that Hendrickson would never be sentenced, it was hard to tell whether he really believed his prediction, or whether he was merely making his "wish-dream" the father of his prediction, so to speak, as a way of stirring the pot (with the idea that Harvester was thinking, "Hey, I have this vague sense that I'm a clueless moron, and I can't win these arguments, so what the heck, let's have some fun......").

In short, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between a clueless idiot and a plain vanilla troll.

[grixit]

hoo doo that haiku...

Harvester wants to
put hands over ears, yell la la
when given the truth.

Hey, it's classier than a limerick, and I'm not as good at those as someone else here.

Surely the tp pretence of intellectuality makes double dactyls more appropriate.