And the last Quatpillar hath given away!

[ASITStands]

Consider, too this from another thread:

Yea, the IRS definitely seems to being going into melt-down mode, they are sending my wife such [$5000 frivolous penalty] letters as well, two within the same week, one for "correspondence" on a date that we have no record of sending them anything [Hmmm... I thought the penalty was only for returns not mere letters, go figure, guess that is more of my inability to comprehend simple sentence structure] and another for a 1040X we never sent them.

So not only did he lose his guru, the IRS is coming after his wife as well, based no doubt on Weston's prompting for his wife to file heaven only knows what.

I think it's more likely in response to Letter 3175C or 3176C.

In other words, it's for making a frivolous response [IRC § 6702(b)], not a frivolous return.

From another thread, we learned that Weston and his wife had 11 years of frivolous penalties imposed for filing 1040X returns. $5,000 x 11 x two Persons = $110,000.

Now, we're talking about a response to a letter or collection notice. Another $110,000?

And, as we discussed earlier, if Weston has blown off the Collection Due Process Hearing, or fails to petition tax court to dispute the frivolous penalties, he forfeits his opportunity.

He'll have to pay the penalties in full before making a request for refund. He writes many words about his tax theories but seems incapable or simply unwilling to make them in court.

These frivolous penalties are the ideal opportunity to test his theories in the real world. Otherwise, it's "Lien-Levy City" and the likely loss of his wife and family. He's toast!

[jkeeb]

Weston has no intention of testing his "theories" with the court.

A serious scholar would read all the information available regarding an issue--generally starting with the most authoritative available. Of course once one read the statutes and regs, one would go to law journals, textbooks, etc.

No, Weston wants to be a martyr to his cause. From information provided, he generally would be pretty low on IRS radar given his income (and the tax generated from such). But Weston has now, due to his frivolous returns, gotten himself on the radar to the tune of $110,000 in frivolous penalties. Now some poor Revenue Officer is going to have that case file come into his/her inventory over and over.

[Thule]

No, Weston wants to be a martyr to his cause.

I'm pondering that Weston is trying to prove what a swell guy he is to the gang over at LH. Hanging around in the dragon's den, stickin' it to the man, challenging the Q-gang at their hometurf and such.

[ASITStands]

I think both 'jkeeb' and 'Thule' are correct.

Weston doesn't really want to test his theories in court. Subconsciously, he knows he'll never prevail, and it would be too damaging to his ego to allow that event to happen.

I also think it boosts his ego to hang around Quatloos and attempt to prove us wrong.

No one at Lost Horizons is talking about him. It ain't working! Weston has lost whatever credibility he had among 'Cracking the Code' enthusiasts, and that just adds displeasure.

'Demosthenes' mentioned that he works for the government (of California, I presume). Wonder how long he'll be able to keep that job once the levies appear on his paycheck?

And, how long will the wife stick around? Is California a community-property state?

[jkeeb]

California = community property state

[Arthur Rubin]

California = community property state

Correct. Once there is an actual dissolution of the community, regardless of legal separation or divorce, future income is no longer community property unless actually transferred to the community, but....

(In other words, if the wife is gainfully employed, she may be able to limit her future liability even if WW is still nuts.)

[Weston White]

It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution ...

Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?

Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider). Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise from you all... sure, sure.

[Arthur Rubin]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider). Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise from you all... sure, sure.

Some of us have tried reading your posts, but, after the 30th clear error in a single paragraph, it gets tiring.

[Weston White]

About LH, actually I am glad that I was banned, because now I do not have to deal with responding to crap like the XIV and UCC Arguments, which seems to be a majority of the postings there. In being forced to leave LH, I have finally dived off the CtC platform and am venturing out on my own into the core argument of it all, which is to say comprehending the proper forms of taxation. I have been wanting to further investigate this issue for several months now. In my resent Google searches, it does not appear that anybody has really bothered to address this issue (except for forum postings from various sites). Instead everybody is more concerned with making their own special and complex arguments. Which makes me wonder if this could be a way for all the individual efforts to ban together and structure their support into a sort of consortium.

As an example all CtC is really doing is debating semantics, with the same theory of course, but the focus is misguided. Why argue what amounts really to loophole after loophole, after loophole? Either your remuneration is taxable indirectly or it is not, if it is not why not argue the crux of the point? Is it not pointless and futile to argue the law of what may or may not be merely a misapplication of the original intention? Besides in sticking to the core keeps everything simple and basic, contrary to expectation, which in turn retains your own focus as a beam rather than an array.

Besides that I have always thought PH to be a jackass, you can just tell by the way he responds to you in his emails; though I had never actually told him so until one of my more recent emails to him (never has he bothered to respond, because he is a liar and chickenhead... and he knows it). Also, he would never admit to it but it does appear according to an email sent to me by another member of LH that Hendrickson does keep informed on what goes on here at Quackloss, at least to some small degree (and BTW he lies rather frequently, what the member sent me was full dishonesty and lies by Hendrickson about me and about Mutters circumstance)… As he had commented that he was aware that I am a member here. Though he thought I was a member here for quite some time (yes, to Hendrickson a week or two is a very long time indeed) and that I argue against CtC (that is not really true, I just think the argument could be so much more precise).

Seriously, would somebody that argues against CtC bother to make a cool script to show support for CtC? http://calmilitia.us/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=118

[Weston White]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider). Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise from you all... sure, sure.

Some of us have tried reading your posts, but, after the 30th clear error in a single paragraph, it gets tiring.

Wow, what such a nice copout. Though you all of course realize that if such a claim was even remotely true, that would mean that not a one of you would be able of reading each others own posts as well, because you all make constant errors (I just do not bother to make an issue out of it, because in reality only desperate and insecure people do things like that, because in short that is all they really have… and besides that 60K+ you threw down for your college degrees has to go to something that is actually productive (like proper use of spelling and grammar), right?), in fact I think your error ratios are much higher than mine... which is amazing considering I am but one small person replying to the many of you. I do not fret too much though, these is after all a posting forum, nobody really cares how well formatted your posts actually are… though that could just be me.

[Weston White]

ABRACADABRA
ABRACADABR
ABRACADAB
ABRACADA
ABRACAD
ABRACA
ABRAC
ABRA
ABR
AB
A


ABRAC -- 7
A -- 11

ABRA+A = ABRA
(7+11)=18 [6+6+6=18]
A=1 B=2 R=18 A=1 + A=1 (22+1=23)
[(2*3=6), 23==32, (2+3=5)||(3+2=5) [The Law of Fives], 23*3=69, 32*3=96, 2/3=.666...7]

... And the bad power of the Quatloosian hath at last been repealed ...

[Famspear]

It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution ...

Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?

Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word [sic] indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or[,] if they had[,] they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider).

And the cases have already been "considered." Over and over and over. They may be new to you, but they're not new to many of us who have studied this nonsense for years.

Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916 [sic] ... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise [sic] from you all... sure, sure.

No, not "pointless comments." Just comments that expose your own foolishness, Weston. Yes, it's painfully obvious that you are lost. It's painfully obvious that you are scaping the barrel for "evidence" -- including the supposed "acclaimed IRS memo."

By the way, on the year of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a typo, and you meant "1913," not "1916".

About LH, actually I am glad that I was banned, because now I do not have to deal with responding to crap like the XIV and UCC Arguments, which seems to be a majority of the postings there. In being forced to leave LH, I have finally dived off the CtC platform and am venturing out on my own into the core argument of it all, which is to say comprehending the proper forms of taxation.

You are diving into still more crap, Weston.

[Lambkin]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it

Get used to the feeling! It's going to happen more and more as you pursue your strategy. What happens if the IRS ignores all your gibberish and puts a saddle on your back? Sounds like losing to me.

[Weston White]

Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?

Because it is so painfully obvious as to what is meant by direct taxation, that is why it opens with that sentence. OMG, were you even being serious? I do love that article though, because it is not just some writer making yet another article, they included their citations and direct quotations, very good word [sic] indeed! It is a timeless piece and has clear evidentiary value to it.[/quote]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or[,] if they had[,] they choose to outright ignore it (except for referencing the acclaimed IRS memo, which I had stated, that claim aside the case quotes included within are pretty interesting to consider).

And the cases have already been "considered." Over and over and over. They may be new to you, but they're not new to many of us who have studied this nonsense for years.

Nope, nothing but pointless comments from people that believe the XVI Amendment to have been ratified in 1916 [sic] ... oh yea I am so going to listen to advise [sic] from you all... sure, sure.

No, not "pointless comments." Just comments that expose your own foolishness, Weston. Yes, it's painfully obvious that you are lost. It's painfully obvious that you are scaping the barrel for "evidence" -- including the supposed "acclaimed IRS memo."

By the way, on the year of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a typo, and you meant "1913," not "1916".

About LH, actually I am glad that I was banned, because now I do not have to deal with responding to crap like the XIV and UCC Arguments, which seems to be a majority of the postings there. In being forced to leave LH, I have finally dived off the CtC platform and am venturing out on my own into the core argument of it all, which is to say comprehending the proper forms of taxation.

You are diving into still more crap, Weston.

ROFLMAO, This is me actually contemplating why I even reply to Famspear's posts???

[Weston White]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it

Get used to the feeling! It's going to happen more and more as you pursue your strategy. What happens if the IRS ignores all your gibberish and puts a saddle on your back? Sounds like losing to me.

I realize this. What you say is so very true and rightfully so because there is no defense against it. This strategy scraps all the misconceived reliance of the IRC and bases itself solidly in origination. It leaves the Quatlost on their knees begging for forgiveness of their sins.

[Famspear]

I see as usual nobody here bothered to read anything I posted or if they had they choose to outright ignore it

Get used to the feeling! It's going to happen more and more as you pursue your strategy. What happens if the IRS ignores all your gibberish and puts a saddle on your back? Sounds like losing to me.

I realize this. What you say is so very true and rightfully so because there is no defense against it. This strategy scraps all the misconceived reliance of the IRC and bases itself solidly in origination. It leaves the Quatlost on their knees begging for forgiveness of their sins.

Zzooom zzoom zzooooooommmmmmmmm!

Off we go to Planet Weston!

[Famspear]

PS: Weston, recheck your posting two steps back. You put the quotation codes in the wrong places. Also, the first quote (the one about the moot point) was not a comment from me; it was from another poster.

[Famspear]

In fairness, I must say that Weston White's ramblings here at Quatloos are not completely useless. I have known for a long time that PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson is a liar -- but I never realized, until this very day, that Hendrickson was also a chickenhead!!

[Weston White]

PS: Weston, recheck your posting two steps back. You put the quotation codes in the wrong places. Also, the first quote (the one about the moot point) was not a comment from me; it was from another poster.

And who said it wsa from you? Oh that's right, it was you. Good job reading buddy... as usual of course

[Weston White]

In fairness, I must say that Weston White's ramblings here at Quatloos are not completely useless. I have known for a long time that PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson is a liar -- but I never realized, until this very day, that Hendrickson was also a chickenhead!!

Yup, and now you have been schooled a bit as well in the distinctions between direct taxation and indirect taxation... Who knows soon you might even actually come to realize your CPA means ditty squat zip zero nada.