A Hypothetical for Bulten

[notorial dissent]

But Dan, BS doesn't like it when things are taken in context, because then he can't twist them to mean what he wants them to mean. That's why he goes hunting for definitions in unrelated statutes to justify his delusions.

I still don't get where they all of a sudden came up with the revelation that income has to be taxed by SS in order to be considered income, or whatever their explanation is.

[silversopp]

You mistakenly neglect to calculate the cost of a college education (which I have had), which makes it take much longer, often 10 years, to clear that first $1,000 net than simply filing returns accurately.

You have a college education and cannot get a full time job. You have to work from temp agency to temp agency. It is very common practice for companies to offer "temp to hire" positions, where productive useful people get hired on directly after proving themselves. Apparently you've never managed to prove yourself useful enough to warrant full time employment.

You mistakenly think I have been, or will be, caused to pay massive fines, interest, and "penelties".

I would make a bet with you, but I wouldn't want to take money from your wife. Poor lady has enough to deal with already.

As for my wife's pants, don't make me track your IP address.

Is that some sort of threat? If so, I'd be more than happy to give you my home address. Just verify that you have medical insurance from your wife beforehand.

Kickback, actually it was a shade under $10,000 for 3 years

Unskilled and uneducated high school students manage to be more successful than you. Must do a lot for your ego to know that you cannot make it in the world as a functioning adult. I'd be worried though, if your wife gets sick enough of you to leave you, you'd be living in the car.

You mistakenly exclude the possibility that I worked for myself.

We may be mistaken, the market is strong for motivational speakers who tell kids the horrors of living in a van down by the river.

You mistakenly think that I'm working part time, and that my hourly rate (when I divide annual rate by 2080) is below Burger-King levels.

You work full time for below minimum wage? You must be one of the few Americans who truly have their job threatened by illegal immigrants. Glad to see that college education is paying off for you.

I don't know what is worse. The fact that this loser makes less than a high school kid, or the fact that this loser goes around posting that to the internet.

[John J. Bulten]

Dezcad, the key difference between refund and credit in terms of prosecution is that an erroneous refund risks a lawsuit to recollect funds which had actually been paid by IRS, while an erroneous credit does not because there is nothing to demand back. I'm acting lawfully. I hear tax evasion and perjury nebulously, except that tax evasion requires proof that tax is due, and perjury requires my oath to something I don't believe to be true, neither of which has appeared.

Kickback, apparently my attempt to balance being cagey about what info I release to the likes of this forum, and being clear enough for the average IQ of the forum members, is leaning too far in the direction of the former.

1. You assume without justification that I'm working part-time and making near Burger-King levels. You apparently neglect the possibility of other nonincome unreported payments. Whether I received additional nonincome or not, I'm living quite comfortably.

2. I believe in working hard, and I work hard. However "busting one's hump" to make "real money" often means an incorrect set of priorities, where "real money" (meaning usually "more money than I make now") is overvalued. I don't expect you to understand nonmoney goals or spiritual priorities. If you would like a dispassionate discussion on proper priorities in life, let's drop the insults.

3. My reason for relatively low income is that I chose to structure my affairs back around 2000 to minimize income for tax purposes (a decision made far and wide across this country). When I discovered CtC in 2004, I realized, liberatingly, that minimizing income is not incompatible with making an ordinary living.

Can you explain succinctly why "zero income arguements" are frivolous enough to warrant a "dime view", if the filer has zero income? I see the frivolous position "Zero Wages", which requires that one have significant statutory wages or other income. Did you want to explain why my receipts met the qualifications of 3121(a) or 3401(a) wages?

You mention fines and jail. Please elaborate specifically on what I have done that might be subject to a fine or conviction sustainable by a lawful district court. I believe this will require demonstrating CtC to be false, and I encourage you to make the attempt, as I did for the first year. I have included all income derived from services on my return as posted.

Your freedom to do as you want only extends as far as the government wants. I have chosen to align my wants with God's wants, and insofar as I succeed, my freedom to do as I want extends as far as God wants. Usually the government wants the same thing. Occasionally it wants something different than God wants, in which case I'm on the winning side by definition, God being omnipotent and all. Again, to discuss this fairly would require forum members to drop the usual sneer veneer of mispresumptions.

Grammarian, your hypothetical is flawed like LPC's. I have not said I "think Pete will lose on appeal", which would imply a settled opinion; I said I'm leaning toward the possibility, meaning I have not settled on an opinion. If either of you wants to ask a real question, I'm here. Example of a real question follows.

LPC, what hypothetical or other rationale can you state to defend Judge Nancy Edmunds against public accusations of subornation of perjury and witness tampering in her ordering Pete Hendrickson to swear he believes what he has sworn he does not believe?

Notorial, if you're going to throw out an unrecognizable strawman such as "income has to be taxed by SS in order to be considered income, or whatever their explanation is", I'd appreciate it if you'd at least give a cite. All income is income. Some income, namely 3121(a) wages, is subject to a surtax known as a Social Security tax. Usually a strawman is wrested out of something someone can quote, but you have just thrown one in gratis. As I've hinted, I'm not going to bother to deny every strawman attributed to CtC this year.

Silver, you mistakenly think that I cannot get a full-time job, that I have to work from agency to agency, that I've never proven myself useful enough for temp-to-hire or full-time, that I make bets, that I would want medical insurance, that the unskilled have more success than me, that I can't make it as a functioning adult, that I work for below minimum wage, that my job is threatened by illegal immigrants, or that I'm losing. You are correct that I made less than a high-school kid if you mean less income. You see how much effort it is to debunk strawmen?

Penni wants me to tell you that I'm stuck with her.

[LPC]

LPC, what hypothetical or other rationale can you state to defend Judge Nancy Edmunds against public accusations of subornation of perjury and witness tampering in her ordering Pete Hendrickson to swear he believes what he has sworn he does not believe?

So many delusions, so little time.

I have seen some rantings of some lunatics, but nothing that would I would dignify to call a "public accusation."

You (and the other lunatics) wouldn't recognize subordination of perjury or witness tampering if they bit you on the ass.

Judge Edmunds has not ordered Hendrickson to swear anything about what Hendrickson believes.

[notorial dissent]

Notorial, if you're going to throw out an unrecognizable strawman such as "income has to be taxed by SS in order to be considered income, or whatever their explanation is", I'd appreciate it if you'd at least give a cite. All income is income. Some income, namely 3121(a) wages, is subject to a surtax known as a Social Security tax. Usually a strawman is wrested out of something someone can quote, but you have just thrown one in gratis. As I've hinted, I'm not going to bother to deny every strawman attributed to CtC this year.

John, I was just quoting your own nonsense when referring to income, posted earlier in this thread, 5-25, to wit:

2. Do you mean a 3401 employer, which I don't have?

SS definitions have nothing to do with whether you owe income tax one way or the other, so the reference makes no sense. So straw what??????????

As to your last comment, then it would appear you are going to be busy not doing a lot then, since most of the BS you will be denying comes from your own mouth.

Your argument about the difference between a credit and a refund is specious at best, since one way or another tax fraud is tax fraud

LPC, what hypothetical or other rationale can you state to defend Judge Nancy Edmunds against public accusations of subornation of perjury and witness tampering in her ordering Pete Hendrickson to swear he believes what he has sworn he does not believe?

In the first place, the court ruled that Petey’s return was a nullity, a frivolous filing, a non-event, and for some reason stopped short of nailing him for perjury at the time, which he so rightly deserved, and she, very foolishly in my opinion, gave him the opportunity to file a valid and truthful return.

He won’t, he is too vane, too stupid, and too far into his own delusion to take the opportunity to bail his sorry ass out of the hole he has dug for himself. So your whole subornation of perjury cant, is like the rest of your blather, a total and utter waste of time.

What I am waiting for is for Petey to follow his ego and again file a false return, and then maybe they will finally send his sorry self up the river where he belongs. Is that succinct and specific enough for you??

[Doktor Avalanche]

What I am waiting for is for Petey to follow his ego and again file a false return, and then maybe they will finally send his sorry self up the river where he belongs. Is that succinct and specific enough for you??

When is that supposed to happen?

[notorial dissent]

Since he hasn't yet complied with any of the other court orders that have been issued, I'm not anticipating anything anytime soon. The question is going to be whether they nail him for contempt for not complying or perjury if he actually does file.

[.]

The question is going to be whether they nail him for contempt for not complying or perjury if he actually does file.

Rock--> <--Hard place.

Sort of like Van Pelt's position, only more imminent and under the purview of the DoJ in a case being actively pursued. Van Pelt's idiotic word-salad mumbo-jumbo to harrass the enforcement of liens which he doesn't think exist is still (probably) under the radar.

But, there are lots of general similarities, not the least of which is that they both seem to be insane.

[LPC]

The question is going to be whether they nail him for contempt for not complying or perjury if he actually does file.

Just to clarify: It's only perjury if he files a return that does NOT report his receipts from Personnel Management as income.

[grammarian44]

Grammarian, your hypothetical is flawed like LPC's. I have not said I "think Pete will lose on appeal", which would imply a settled opinion; I said I'm leaning toward the possibility, meaning I have not settled on an opinion.

OK, let me rephrase my question. Given that you are leaning toward the possibility that Pete will lose on appeal, what is the possible significance of the fact that the judge twice said Pete "had no income" (assuming that this is what the judge said, notwithstanding LPC's very valid point that in fact the judge did not say that)?

You see, Bulten, you never really answer the questions put to you, no matter how straightforwardly they are asked. Instead, you latch onto any slight difference in wording and use that to say, "I never said X, instead I said Y," when in fact X is no different from Y.

So the question still stands, and you have still failed to answer it.

You said the fact that Pete earned $304.16 in income is significant.

What is its significance? What difference does this fact make to the future of the case?

Here, let me make it easy for you.

Just complete this sentence:

The reason the fact that the judge said Pete "had no income" when in fact he had $304.16 in income is so significant to Pete's case is ____________.


By the way, this is not a hypothetical. It's simply a request that you provide information that would offer some sort of support for a claim you have in fact made.

So support your claim. I'm waiting for your answer.

[Joey Smith]

John thinks that there is a difference between tax evasion and evasion of taxes. He also apparently thinks that because he can get his compensation paid to his company instead of as salary that somehow he can avoid taxes on it.

Like so many others before him, John will not be convinced until after the first few months in the greybar.

[notorial dissent]

The question is going to be whether they nail him for contempt for not complying or perjury if he actually does file.

Just to clarify: It's only perjury if he files a return that does NOT report his receipts from Personnel Management as income.

And the likelihood of him actually filing an honest return and thus proving him to have been a liar???

[John J. Bulten]

I think Pete's reporting of $306.14 income is significant, because Judge Edmunds twice stated that the Defendants "reported that they had no income", which demonstrates incompetence or malice.

And the judge's statement should be taken in context. In each case, the three preceding paragraphs described the false claims of each defendant that he or she had received no wages or other compensation. They therefore reported no income from employment. The judge did not include the words "from employment" but that is what was being discussed.

Nice try, but since (as you demonstrate) it's so much fun to be hypercritical, only 3121 wages are income from employment, while 3401 wages are properly employee income, and compensation such as Doreen's is neither. 3401 wages and compensation no formal relation to "income from employment" as described in the Code since 1935. You mean "income from work".

Unfortunately, she may have been discussing wages and compensation, but since she did not use the word "income" otherwise in this connection, your reading of "income" as meaning "income from employment" or work is not sustainable by context. The context just as easily, if not more so, supports the idea that she didn't think about Pete's returns at all on this point and just took Attorney Metcalfe's word for it.

But even if your rationalization is adopted to sustain the supposed honorableness of the court, her lapse is still significant:

So please explain how the judge's purported misstatements can be "significant" yet will have no bearing on the future of the case. Significant to whom? For what purpose? Just so you can find something to disagree with, trivial as it is? Or because it is somehow material, even though you already concede that Pete will lose on appeal?

It is significant to reasonable people who take this strong suggestion of her refusal to read the record, and assemble it with all the other evidence of subornation of perjury and witness tampering. Sorry to play the refrain, but I don't believe I said it was significant to winning in the 6th Circuit. Nor did I put "had no income" in quotes, I put "no income" in quotes (as in no income on their return, if I can use Dan's context argument).

A suggestion of refusal to read the record is a suggestion of incompetence or malice, which vitiates her defense that her unprecedented order was merely to encourage truthful testimony, since she is not apparently concerned with what testimony would be truthful to the best of Pete's knowledge and belief. I hope that answers your question, even though I didn't fill out your flawed sentence.

1. Rent or own your place of residence?

2. Retirement plan(s)? 401s, IRAs and such.

3. Investments? Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. and do you report and pay taxes owed on the interest and dividends received, if any?

4. Health Insurance? Self-insured or do you carry your own coverage?

I already told my RO, ask him.

By the way, the IRS, tax courts and various other courts take a dim view of people who have income, with W-2s and submit tax forms indicating no income. Plus there is the whole falsifying tax returns and such. Unreported income, if it can be proven, is another set of potential ills waiting to befall you.

I will keep this in mind if I find anyone with income who indicates no income, or who falsifies tax returns, or who has unreported income.

Judge Edmunds has not ordered Hendrickson to swear anything about what Hendrickson believes.

She ordered him to fill out a form which states at the bottom that he affirms under penalties of perjury that it is correct, true, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. How is that not swearing about what he believes? He can only fill it out according to what he believes.

she, very foolishly in my opinion, gave him the opportunity to file a valid and truthful return.

No, rather than ordering the filing of a valid and truthful return, she dictated the content of the return, and that content was not in accord with his belief. His first return was what he believed, which is why it's not perjury. A second return such as she ordered would be.

Perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs.

[notorial dissent]

John, she flat out told him that his theory of the universe was wrong, that he did in fact have taxable income from wages as the W-2 indicated, and that his deeply held [money making] belief that he didn’t was a crock, and that being the case he could either fill out the 1040 properly based on the law, or face the consequences. That is the meat of matter, and you can dance around it all you want to, as I am sure you will, but Petey was flat out told that his theory didn’t fly and he has been “warned” officially now, so, he will either have to admit that he has been wrong and blow his money making machine, or commit perjury by filing a false return, or put himself in contempt by not filing. So which is it going to be???????

What Pete wants to believe is irrelevant, he has been “officially” told that he is wrong, that his interpretation is wrong, and that ends the matter. His first return was declared a nullity so it is irrelevant. He now has the option of obeying the law or facing the consequences.

[LPC]

I think Pete's reporting of $306.14 income is significant, because Judge Edmunds twice stated that the Defendants "reported that they had no income", which demonstrates incompetence or malice.

Remember, this is from someone (Bulten) who originally claimed that the judge had "said twice he had 'no income,'" which demonstrates incompetence or malice (or both) by Bulten.

And the judge's statement should be taken in context. In each case, the three preceding paragraphs described the false claims of each defendant that he or she had received no wages or other compensation. They therefore reported no income from employment. The judge did not include the words "from employment" but that is what was being discussed.

Nice try, but since (as you demonstrate) it's so much fun to be hypercritical, only 3121 wages are income from employment,

One of the (many) differences between you and me is that, when I am "hypercritical" (your word) I am both (a) right and (b) pointing out a meaningful distinction.

In this case, the judge ruled that Hendrickson had income that he did not report, based on the Form W-2 that was submitted by his employer and the sworn testimony of his employer (which Hendrickson did not contradict), meaning that Hendrickson had "wages" within the meaning of section 3121 and "gross income" within the meaning of section 61.

Which means that Hendrickson had income from employment that he did not report.

Your claims to the contrary therefore demonstrate incompetence or malice (or both).

[John J. Bulten]

Notorial, she told him that two particular theories of the universe, which he never espoused and which are in fact contradictory with each other, were wrong. Those theories were basically "I had no wages because only government workers earn wages" and "I had wages but they're not income".

Dan, Pete did contradict the W-2 by filing his 1040 under oath, which is all that should be needed to correct an erroneous W-2.

Further, you state that a judge's finding of unreported income means that the relevant party definitely has 3121 wages or 61 gross income. I'll ignore your blurriness about these three types of income (the pointing out of which would be both right and pointing out a meaningful distinction, but would not make a larger difference in the argument). The problem is that if a judge's finding makes something so, we don't need a Constitution. Since we have a Constitution, a finding contrary to it can be corrected; and if it is not, then the Constitution is being thwarted.

Perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs. Keep in mind there are two counts here for each crime because Doreen got the same order.

[LPC]

Dan, Pete did contradict the W-2 by filing his 1040 under oath,

Then Pete lied.

You can't have it both ways. Either Pete was wrong about whether the payments he received were "wages" or he lied about whether or not received them.

Your choice. Is Pete wrong, or is he a liar?

[John J. Bulten]

What kind of weekend are you having this late at night?

As near as I can tell, you think that the form in which Pete contradicted the W-2 was to say "payments were not received". You well know that what Pete said amounted to "neither 3121(a) wages nor 3401(a) wages were received".

Pete does not lie. If, however, you think he's wrong about statutory wages, please take it up on the "statutory wages" thread and tell me what norms of debate you would like to submit to (as I've asked you on and off for two years).

[John J. Bulten]

Add: Perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs. Keep in mind there are two counts here for each crime because Doreen got the same order. And I don't keep crickets for these purposes anymore.

[jg]

It is not uncommon for a court to order that a tax return be filed in accordance with the law. Wserra mentioned "as conditions of probation or supervised release in criminal tax cases." See the prior discussion at http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=436

Do you imagine that one can file and pay income taxes according to their own beliefs and not in accordance with the law, as it is interpreted and enforced?
Do you think that the tax law changes based on individual beliefs?