(Bolding added).Patrick Mooney wrote:Dear Warriors,
It has now been 90 days since my second trial in the United States Tax Court and our criminal Federal Government has yet to return a verdict.
That was the trial where the IRS failed to carry its burden of proof that a properly filed, CTC-educated return could be found frivolous on its face.
That was the trial where the IRS could only produce hearsay, which the judge improperly allowed into evidence, to substantiate its erroneous claim that I received taxable income.
That was the trial where the IRS warned of a "slam dunk" case against me because of my earlier loss in the TC back in 2008 (on a highly suspicious procedural error).
Why is it taking so long to decide a purely simple matter? Could it be that Pete is correct all along and that a verdict in my favor would severely damage the sham conviction the DOJ and Judge Rosen manipulated out of the jury?
I wonder.................
A few of the "Warriors" cheer him on, but "Hang'Em High" attempts to inject a note of sanity:
(Bolding added).Hang'Em High wrote:Patrick, isn't it normal for Tax Court decisions to take months to come down? I remember somebody posting some time last year that he still didn't have a decision after like 6 months. It surprised me then but now I think this maybe more the rule than the exception.
Weren't there any post-trial briefs (see Tax Court Rule 151)? I gather from reading the rule that there usually are unless the judge directed you and respondent not to. Opening briefs are not typically due until 75 days after trial, then if there are answering briefs that's another 45 days, and another 30 days if a reply brief is applicable.
It sounds like either the judge directed that no briefs were desired or you were unaware of this rule and neglected to file one. Either way, I don't think 90 days is long enough to give much significance to there being no decision yet.
Patrick ignores this comment-- no doubt because he did, in fact, neglect to file a post-trial brief-- and instead offers one of the more perfect examples ever posted of what passes for "logic" over at Lost Hopes:
(Bolding added).Patrick Mooney wrote:A verdict against me in this instance would not mean that CTC is wrong, but the the Court acted outside the law (again) in my case. This is a win for me because it establishes more evidence of government malfeasance, to be displayed to the public in our fight for CTC educated justice.
A verdict in my favor returns my property and seriously weakens the credibility of the DOJ and the IRS, as well as continues to implicate the Federal Government in one of the greatest criminal financial/political operations in modern history.
I can't lose, and neither can any warrior that acts on the info found in CTC.
I swear, you can't make this stuff up.