Free 2Live...in a Dumpster

[Dr. Caligari]

More fun at LostHopes.

"Warrior" free2live started a thread called "Doing something wrong" (you think?) with this post:

I have been filing CTC since 2004, I have refiled from 01. I have received (1) check for my money back for all those years. They want it back too. I see all these victories and I wonder what in the H*** I'm doing wrong. I have liens against all of my property, have lost big time in T.C. almost every day I get notices, letters and such from IRSS.
I know the truth about the taxation in America but seem to attract IRSS agents that don"t see it the same way.
We are not talking about a a lot of money here. I work in the construction business, actually I was laid off last Sept. and haven't worked since. Now they are coming after earnings of my wife.
I just don't know what to do.

(Bolding added).

[Pottapaug1938]

He doesn't know what to do?

Howzabout PAY THE TAXES OWED!

When the founder of your tax cult is going to jail on tax related charges, that would be a hint to the un-stupid that perhaps you chose the wrong path and should stop before you go even further into the wilderness.

But. more likely, is that free2live will end up with everything siezed and garnished, while he cries and wails, "but I said all the magic words and am a tall standing warrior, I am supposed to win!!"

Dumb f*ck getting exactly what he deserves because he is too stupid to do otherwise.

Oh, but you forget that he will now be Suffering For The Holy Cause. Instead of being a p*ssant with a p*ssant life, he will now be a Martyr, and have plenty of time to sit, first in prison and then in Poverty, and orate loud and long about how Persecuted he is.

[Famspear]

"free2live" supposedly filed a Tax Court petition on or about December 16, 2008, and was supposed to go to trial some time this month.

[Famspear]

A user called "TranscriptsDontLie" responds to "free2live":

Without a doubt -- you are in a world of hurt; confused; wife is getting upset ... NOT because you're doing something wrong, not at all. As Larken Rose has called it, you are "kicking the dragon" and it is spitting fire at you -- you dared NOT to go along with the fed's 90-Billion$-per-month extortion racket (now known as "Employment Taxes", see "Notes" under IRC 3401).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2593

"Not doing anything wrong"



What a bunch of hopeless losers. The blind leading the blind.

.......On a more constructive note: do you truly KNOW where you stand right now, for each tax period? Did you get a copy of your basic transcripts (i.e. IMF Specific, TXMODA, AMDISA) for each tax period? Since you mentioned "agents" getting involved with you, did you get your "ICS History" transcript (essentially a body-of-lies record the investigating agents made up to smear you in the worst way)? Since you mentioned your wife's earnings are apparently being garnished (levied), did you file "married / joint")? If you did, it would make sense for you to re-file as "married / separate" a.s.a.p. and then have your wife petition for "Innocent Spouse Relief" per IRC 6015.

If I remember correctly, the rule used to be (and maybe still is) that once you've filed "married filing jointly" for a given year, you cannot go back and amend to file "married filing separately." (If you originally filed separately, you can amend by filing jointly, though.)

To sum it up: standing down now is not much of an option for you, nor for your wife. What you need is to develop the evidence (if you don't have it yet) you need to prove auntie's numerous violations of applicable laws, regs and procedure (your transcripts are the only thing that doesn't lie!) and re-open your appeals- and T.C.-proceedings under auntie's "retained jurisdiction" provisions... Just a few thoughts. I only wish the best for you!

(sigh......)



EDIT: Here's a post from "free2live" back on October 21, 2009:

I have have had this penalty [the frivolous return penalty] leveled at me. They stole $2,400.00 from my paycheck. They are criminals' no judgment, no lien no nothing just a letter to the 3rd party involved! That's all it takes for them. They accepted one CTC filed return and sent a letter "amount owed ZERO", the penalty was supposed to be for that return and the return for the following year.
I filed for a CDPH, that stopped the levy, they denied the CDPH, last week I sent them another letter demanding they return my STOLEN money and accept the return as filed.
As of this date they haven't re-started the levy but that could change next pay period.
By the way, they STOLE all but $600.00 on a 2 week paycheck, they took 2,400.00 in 3 paychecks!
Criminal? Most certainly but that is what we are supposed to be fighting against! Surrendering our fight for freedom won't help!

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... ght=#21192

Dumb as dirt.

[Jozef Bleaux]

works in the construction "business" does he? Hmm, sounds like the old independent contractor vs employee trick. Nice try, sucker!

[Cathulhu]

You can amend from joint to separate, but not after the deadline (April 15) has passed.

[grixit]

I was once acquainted with someone who was right at the bottom level of construction work. As in sub sub contracter for housing projects. When things were moving, he'd hire anyone who knew which end of a hammer to pick up. When things were tight, he'd lay off everybody except the supervisors. Sometimes he'd "forget" to refill the account he used for payroll, and his checks would all bounce. A couple of times that led to the workers hauling him into small claims court-- and once part of the work mysteriously burned down.

I wonder if that's the part of the industry Freeloader works in.

[LOBO]

If I remember correctly, the rule used to be (and maybe still is) that once you've filed "married filing jointly" for a given year, you cannot go back and amend to file "married filing separately." (If you originally filed separately, you can amend by filing jointly, though.)

That's correct. And good luck filing an innocent spouse claim while explaining why you didn't report your own income on the original return.

[The Operative]

One of our favorite and most idiotic losers, Patrick Mooney now responds to Free2Live:
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2593

Dear Free,

I am in the exact same boat as you in regards to victories. I don't have a spouse.

I offer no complaints for the road I have chosen and the consequences that may befall me (should they be adverse). The physical world is where your spirit is tested and identified..."A tree is known by its fruit."

Stepping up to the plate for CTC means that you have a spirit that is truly worthy of the adjective "American". What you are lacking is a vision of what actions are necessary and proper when confronting this terrible situation. This is alrgely because there are not a lot of strong support networks for warriors.

Let me tell you folks, that's not going to happen on this forum. CTC needs to get into your neighbor's heads. We've got to get some good momentum building as a CTC-communications and education network.

The forum can be a resource for problems or the sharing of useful information, but the MOVEMENT itself has to take place in the real world...shaking hands with real people and asking each other what we intend to do about this.

This has a secondary effect of making sure jury pools have more and more legally aware particpants.

Anyway, I'm not going to lay out the action plan here, as there is no one perfect way to do this. But the forum should be buzzing with reports of how we warriors are spreading the word. We can not leave it up to Pete and email forwarding alone.

Have faith, Free. You are acting on the truth...the reward is big in this world and the next.

One problem with your plan Patrick is that CTC is not the law. CTC is not correct in regards to the law either morally or legally. You may believe that it is, but we all know that you are an idiot. I would bet that most people that have to interact with you probably think you are an idiot as well.

Another problem with your plan is that most people recognize when they need expert advice and who to trust for that expert advice. For medical issues, most people go to some type of doctor. For dental issues, they go to a dentist. For car repair issues, most people go to a mechanic. For computer issues, they go to a computer expert. For legal issues, they go see a lawyer and for accounting issues, they see a CPA, etc. Most reasonable people do not accept the word of a now twice convicted felon about legal and accounting issues. Regardless of how many hands you shake or people you tell about CTC, it will never be more than an illegal tax evasion scheme followed by more than a few hundred people.

[Famspear]

Like many other wackadoosters (such as Harvester), Mooney peppers his writings with pseudo-religious and pseudo-patriotic blathering. These people want to raise fraud and cheating in general to the status (in their own minds) of a patriotic, faith-based, God-fearing crusade for truth, justice and the American way.

[Nikki]

The only movement the CrackHeads will be able to instigate will be closely tied to porcelain.

[Arthur Rubin]

If I remember correctly, the rule used to be (and maybe still is) that once you've filed "married filing jointly" for a given year, you cannot go back and amend to file "married filing separately." (If you originally filed separately, you can amend by filing jointly, though.)

That's correct. And good luck filing an innocent spouse claim while explaining why you didn't report your own income on the original return.

The other spouse, could, perhaps file an innocent or injured spouse claim, I suppose.

[LPC]

The physical world is where your spirit is tested and identified..."A tree is known by its fruit."

Interesting choice of scripture. I wonder what "fruit" Mooney thinks that he and Hendrickson have produced. I see fines, penalties, conflicts, misery, delusions, imprisonment, and unhappiness as the only fruits of Hendrickson's writings.

[Famspear]

now, free2live writes:

I know we are in a world of hurt but right is right and we WILL NOT give up...change our testimony...I tell them that we stand by our returns as filed and that is that.

We have sent FOIA on several occasions and they send nothing back that is useful or they say that the info I request is exempt.

Now we have requested a face to face CDPH and we are getting a phone interview instead.

They say they will use the LAW and court decisions to decide our case. When I bring up the LAW or their regulations or court decisions I'm being frivolous, hence the 30 Grand in penalties.

And then -- please secure your beverages -- he closes with this howler:

I guess I am hoping somebody will come to their senses...NOT. THAT won't happen.

No, I guess not.

User "SaintPaul" responds with this:

free2live,

The short "suggestion" is: You need to start thinking outside the box, as I have found necessary.

The long "explanation" is: I have the "advantage" of having dealt with the arrogant and rogue IRS since 1980, and understand their mind-set and attitude very clearly. When you play with a tar baby, you're going to get covered with tar, as Pete is finding out, and a lot of us have also. And that's EXACTLY what any CDPH/Tax Court/computer-generated "notice" sequence/administrative "procedure" is. Like I have stated before, it is all only to obstruct you at every turn. Certainly, you "must" exhaust all administrative avenues first "before going to court" for relief, but you will be exhausted yourself if you are all learning it "for the first time yourself" and have to look forward to only repeat what everyone else before you did already (no matter the specifics). They are not "helpful" in any way as an American government agency should be towards "its" people. Their main objective is that you "think" that it is ultimately "not worth" the prodding (penalties/fines/jail time) and that you will "see" the "wisdom" in eagerly wanting-to-do whatever direction they may point as-fast-as-you-can, like the proverbial cattle in the Chicago stockyard chutes, from ranch to butchering/"harvesting." You are not going "anywhere" that they do not want you to go, when you "follow" their adminstrative [sic] procedure trail set out for you.

Certain people on this forum, while no doubt having the best of intentions, have no real solution (if expecting ANY kind of relief "playing along with" any IRS suggestion-into-a-dead-end "procedure").

[ . . . ]

Regardless of whatever someone continually churns out (supposing to be encouraging platitudes) thinks, any "answer" HAS to be a sledge hammer "out-of-the-blue" to the "HASBRO TOY HABITAT," and that [answer] isn't following the same tried-and-lost lemming "instinct" of cooperating/playing along with/requesting/demanding/pleading/begging that they (IRS) just somehow "do what is right", etc.

Too many "like-minded" non-thinkers [are] continually posting no-where theoretical "hopes" and alleged "maybe" procedure answers/suggestions [that] are just like in-grown hairs - spinning around and around and around and just getting nowhere but more infected/toxic by the day.

[ . . . ]

And, what, pray-tell, is SaintPaul's solution? What is the "sledge hammer" that will finally "work"???? For the marvelous answer, read on:

That "sledge hammer" just may be the knowledge (and therefore pertinent application/use) of the history of the Admiralty jurisdiction policy since 1938, and things like the Affidavit of Material Facts, the 11th Amendment, U.C.C. procedures, etc. which have been revealed from time to time on this forum, regardless of Pete's declared position of keeping the CTC concept "clean" and "simple" [ . . . .]

Good grief. Again, the blind leading the blind.....

As you now know, free2live, there is no "approved," thought-out, standard CTC method to protecting yourself [ . . . .] once you have committed yourself ala CTC filings.

I wish that it were not so, but in the "real" world, especially Pete, has no "real" answer [sic]. The machinery of a meat-grinder does not clog/stop when flesh and blood is put into it. Just ask that Chinese student of Tennemen [sic] Square. There's no difference here.

The above does not reflect any change in my position, faith and belief in the CTC fight. It is merely a sobering observation that one definition of "insanity" is thinking that repeatedly repeating the same circumstance/procedure will somehow yield a different result. And, my motivation is not any reward in this life or the next. That's the anthem of a demogogue [sic]. My motivation IS the rule of law, and that that law can and must apply to me just as it seemingly has to other CTC-filers that HAVE received their property refunds with no subsequent follow-up demands for the "return" of it "back" on nothing more than a no-basis-in-law "policy" designed/intended only for ultimate control of every living being.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... b23d#25226

(bolding added; some editorial punctuation and spacing changes made)

[Famspear]

Now Patrick Mooney responds to the critique by "SaintPaul":

I don't know who you are, St. Paul. Take any shot you want at me. I don't care.

BTW, really good idea to come on the forum and trash the method you say you believe is correct.

Oh, that mean ol', bad ol' SaintPaul! Maybe the PeterEricBlowhardMeister will ban him!

I haven't seen any UCC Admiralty law cadets do better following their demagogues....

Hey, for once, a good point, Patrick! The "UCC" wackadoosters and the "admiralty" wackadoosters are just as much a bunch of losers -- literally -- as are the Peter Hendrickson/Cracking the Code wackadoosters.

[.]

There's not much that's funnier than watching one bunch of delusional morons point fingers at another bunch of delusional morons.

Particularly since all of the various flavors of delusional TPs combined have not a single victory, nor the prospect of one after decades of banging their heads against the brick wall of reality.

Well, wait, a few of them have filed frivolous crap that should have been sanctioned by a court but wasn't. And they wonder why we laugh at them.

[Famspear]

Now "SaintPaul" responds to Patrick Mooney:

I don't know who you are Patrick Mooney, but you don't seem to be able to read and comprehend the English language. I did not trash the method that I believe is correct.

CTC has no method for dealing with an IRS that does not follow the rule of law. Period. The IRS has a method for dealing with... but you already know the rest.

P.S. Nobody's going to inform you if they actually beat back oppression in any method not in strict CTC-educated opinion-compliance on this forum. I know that I won't. My comments were directed to free2live, not you.....

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2593

Now, "SkankBeat" chimes in:

SaintPaul sounds a bit like Pablo. Forget maritime and commercial law. Although it is relevant to understanding certain things that surround CTC, such as "tax court" and liens, it is irrelevant to getting remedy. Absolutely irrelevant. We are on the land and the "law of the land" is common law. Use it. Why subject yourself to foreign jurisdiction?

Speaking of "stepping up to the plate", why don't you folks communicate direct with the US Treasury Secretary instead of his delegates? Forget all this delegate fuzz. If Payers are impersonating a "withholding agent" in order to commit the common law crime of conversion as a delegate of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a delegate of the US Treasury Secretary, by law, is the US Treasury Secretary committing the common law crime of conversion? Yes if he has authorized it. Well put this man on notice so he cannot claim ignorance of what his delegates are doing and direct him to remedy. If the US Treasury Secretary then does not remedy the situation, then he has violated his oath of office and you can take him to court for the common law crime of conversion. As pointed out in another thread, USC 26 does not authorize withholding in the absence of consent. Yes USC 26 is congruent with common law! Establish non-consent and you establish conversion.

This is "dumb as dirt squared." The Battle of the Bloviating Boobs.

[Nikki]

Well put this man on notice so he cannot claim ignorance of what his delegates are doing and direct him to remedy. If the US Treasury Secretary then does not remedy the situation, then he has violated his oath of office and you can take him to court for the common law crime of conversion.

I'm sure TIGTA, CI, and the Secret Service will be very happy to help the LoserHead get in touch with the Secretary.

In the event LoserHead merely files a court action, he will be lucky to just see a dismissal with prejudice sans sanctions.

[notorial dissent]

I’m mildly to totally shocked, old Skanky almost gets it right, or even gets close for that matter. Trying to deal with tax law by relying on, what is admittedly the purest and puerilest of nonsense, maritime and commercial law as an approach to dealing with tax or anything but what they were intended for is a total waste of time, and yet that is what the dim and bewildered insist on doing even though it repeatedly and universally fails. In my book, that kind of failure is always evidence of true stupidity, not failure to follow the “proven directions”.

Then we fall back off the edge by going to the “common law” is a “sovereign sure fire remedy” nonsense, followed by further proof of utterly cluelessness. I really love the send a letter to the Sec Treas and tell him to stop stealing money from you bit, truly clueless, and again with the common law nonsense. The “USC 26 is congruent with common law” is just the final finishing pinnacle touch of utter cluelessness.

Actually Famspear, I think it is more like "dumb as dirt cubed", you really have to work at being this dumb, actually pig ignorant, and that is a disservice to pigs.

[Cathulhu]

Purely for the sake of argument, I do know of one situation where maritime law comes into play with tax law. If you were to read the Market Segment Specialization Profile for the Alaska fishing industry, I happen to know that the authors worked carefully to dovetail the maritime law requirements (didja know there's law for how many calories they serve a deckhand daily? Well, you guys here, with exception of ignorant trolls, probably do.) in with the audit guide so that there would not be any conflicts of law. Brian and George know their stuff.