Does anyone know who this CrackHead is?

[iplawyer]

I want to thank gdude and Whitey for their attaboys for Pablo. I'm one of the guys, in fact, the main guy at the Tax Return Team's site who people pay for help with the nuts and bolts of tax court. Gdude and Whitey are both clients of mine.

If I were able to I would help people for free, but I'm not. If I wasn't able to charge for some of my time, and I don't charge for all of it by a long shot, I would have to say "no" when people call me for help.

Unlike Dave "The Ego" Champion, I inform my clients up front that if they don't think they got good value for the money they paid me, I'll give it back immediately, no questions asked. I've never had anyone ask for a refund. And you don't have to send me cash in an envelope. I would most definitely have asked Champion for my money back if he had made that offer.

Although the LH forum is free, it is also the support site for the sale of Pete's books. AS IT SHOULD BE. I've purchased at least a dozen copies of CTC and at least one of everything Pete's written. I hope every one of you has. I've contributed more to Pete's defense funds than I've collected from any TRT client. People who think fighting dragons is free are as naive as puppies.

The Tax Return Team membership fees just barely cover the cost the weekly seminars, the legal research subscriptions, and the site maintenance costs. People who truly can't afford it can join free. I don't charge those who are really broke and swap time with people who can do research. Pablo puts in long hours on the site and the seminars, all while fighting his own CTC court battles both federal and state.

As to what I charge for, I've got thousands of hours and dollars invested in tax court litigation. I have four active cases covering nine years. One fully briefed and undecided after 10 months. Two more petitioned and in early discovery. A forth with an NOD and a separate $10K in friv penalties in the administrative process. I've been at this since 2005. I can short cut your learning process.

Though I really hope a refund will be a final victory, I've got some bad news for those CTC 'warriors' who think every refund is a triumph. I know plenty of people who have found that a refund is just the first shot in a protracted war. The TRT group is dedicated to making sure we are armed for that fight.

I had a thorough knowledge of CTC when I got my first NOD. It was of no use at all in running a tax court case. Neither was this forum. I don't say that to criticize the forum. I understand that litigation is not the focus, nor should it be. But I was happy to find Pablo's group shortly after I filed my second tax court petitions. The moral support alone was worth the $10 a month membership. I'd blundered through my first case like a drunk in a house of mirrors. What success I had was mostly dumb luck.

A group of CTC informed filers with a focus on legal self defense is a valuable resource. All of us here are well versed in the CTC legal argument, but how many of these questions will that help you answer:

What it the purpose of a Tax Court trial?

What are the elements of a Tax Court petition?

What is Discovery?

How is Discovery done in Tax Court?

What are Stipulations of Fact?

Why are they important?

What are the elements of a motion?

What is hearsay?

What is the difference between direct and cross examination?

I could go on at some length with these, but you get the idea. If you can't answer these questions confidently, you will probably be severely abused if you end up in tax court. And yes, the court is corrupt, and they will abuse us anyway, but why should we make it easy?

I'll be happy to talk to anyone who might have had a refund turn sour, or who is holding a frivolous penalty notice, NOD, or notice of lien, or whatever slimy trick they may have dealt you, about what to do next.

I agree with Whitey completely, we're all in this together.

Hal O'Boyle
305-395-4861 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 305-395-4861 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Skype: hxoboy

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 8&start=15

[Famspear]

The name "Hal O'Boyle" at the bottom of the post, along with what appears to be a phone number with a "305" area code (southern Florida) might lead one to suspect that it's this guy:

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert_bio=Hal_O'Boyle

Libertarian thinker and writer most interested in money, economics and government Author of a weekly column in Key West The Newspaper Married to a broad in Costa Rica Father to two male teens Born in Scranton, PA quite some time ago Lived in Key West, FL for 30 years Now living in Costa Rica where no one can pronounce my name.

(bolding added).

EDIT: Here's another web site:

http://www.haloboyle.com/

[Famspear]

More for "Hal O'Boyle":

http://haloboyle.blogspot.com/

and:

http://www.kwtn-blue.com/hal_oboyle/

EDIT: And:

http://www.democracythepaintedwhore.com/

[Famspear]

Here's an article by "Hal O'Boyle" about Sherry Peel Jackson: "IRS Clubs Another Innocent Victim and Tosses Her in the Cooler". See:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/46807

[Famspear]

Among the books listed by Boyle here (left hand side of the page) is Hendrickson's Cracking the Code:

http://www.democracythepaintedwhore.com/

[Famspear]

More on Hal O'Boyle:

There is a Harold X. O'Boyle who has filed petitions in U.S. Tax Court:

Harold X. & Sally O'Boyle
case no. 017240-09
filed July 17, 2009.

and:

Harold X. & Sally O'Boyle
case no. 020102-09
Filed August 24, 2009.

[iplawyer]

Well - I guess you can escape tax liability by moving to Costa Rica?

[Famspear]

Well - I guess you can escape tax liability by moving to Costa Rica?

Not if you keep your U.S. citizenship.

Of course, with respect to items included in gross income, there is an exclusion for certain foreign earned income for U.S. citizens, etc., who live abroad -- 26 USC 911. I believe for year 2009, the maximum exclusion amount is $91,400. See IRS Form 2555 for 2009.

[The Observer]

I had a thorough knowledge of CTC when I got my first NOD. It was of no use at all in running a tax court case. Neither was this forum. I don't say that to criticize the forum. I understand that litigation is not the focus, nor should it be. But I was happy to find Pablo's group shortly after I filed my second tax court petitions. The moral support alone was worth the $10 a month membership. I'd blundered through my first case like a drunk in a house of mirrors. What success I had was mostly dumb luck

Holy cow, CtC doesn't cover litigation? I thought the Blowhard had said CtC was all we needed. So I have to pay Pablo in order to defend CtC in court? And will I have to pay another guru in order to appeal my conviction in order to defend my Pablo defense? Why can't there just be a TP theory that doesn't require a myriad of other gurus to undo or minimize the collateral damage that results from following it?

[Edited by LPC to correct attribution on quotation.]

[Famspear]

Holy cow, CtC doesn't cover litigation? I thought the Blowhard had said CtC was all we needed.

Yeah, I'm confused about that too, since the PontificatingPrisonBoundPeterMeister, the Bloviating Blowhard has said that his Cracking the Code is:

............the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

I mean, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson is obviously a guy who believes that he is so knowledgeable, so intellectual, that he leaves Professor Boris Bittker and every other tax law scholar in the dust.

It's hard to misinterpret the all-encompassing nature of the knowledge afforded us by Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code and his losthorizons web site. Why, let's recall what Hendrickson has said about his own book and web site:

ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THIS WEBSITE. ANYTHING NOT FOUND ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT, AND WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCURATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.

Hendrickson says that his "CtC" has the tax "pegged":

CtC has the tax pegged...The only ongoing development needed...is the...accumulation of...authority...and the refinement of our understanding of...the ploys...by the entrenched beneficiaries of the crumbling status-quo...

Yeah, I just can't understand why Hendrickson is going back to prison for using his method -- oops, I forgot he says it's not a "method" -- on his own tax returns. I just can't understand why he and his followers keep losing every single case.

Oh, well, I'm just a poor ol' unsophisticated country boy. Who am I to try to understand the tax law analysis of a guy like Hendrickson -- after all -- look at his credentials! He has experience in apartment complex maintenance.

[LPC]

There is a Harold X. O'Boyle who has filed petitions in U.S. Tax Court:

Should be him. The docket search report shows the state of residence as blank, which is probably what is shown for those living out of the US, and his wife's name does seem to be Sally.

[LPC]

Holy cow, CtC doesn't cover litigation? I thought the Blowhard had said CtC was all we needed. So I have to pay Pablo in order to defend CtC in court? And will I have to pay another guru in order to appeal my conviction in order to defend my Pablo defense? Why can't there just be a TP theory that doesn't require a myriad of other gurus to undo or minimize the collateral damage that results from following it?

It is weird when you think that CtC is supposed to be about the "rule of law" and yet even the lemmings have to admit that knowing what "the law" really is doesn't help them when they are in court in front of a judge.

The fall-back rationalization is that court litigation is all about procedure, and the lemmings lose in court because they've screwed up the procedures, ignoring the fact that the judges are ruling on the merits.

[grixit]

There is a Harold X. O'Boyle who has filed petitions in U.S. Tax Court:

Should be him. The docket search report shows the state of residence as blank, which is probably what is shown for those living out of the US, and his wife's name does seem to be Sally.

Apparently she also answers to "broad".

[Famspear]

Harold X. O'Boyle and about 562 other individuals and entities sued the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a while back, in connection with some Freedom of Information Act requests. The United States Court of Appeals for the DC circuit threw out much of that case on May 27, 2005 (on appeal, case no. 04-5082). See Maxwell et al. v. Snow, In His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury. Among the arguments raised in that case:

1. that the appellants (taxpayers) were not citizens;

2. that Texas is not a part of the United States;

3. that the United States itself is unconstitutional, because it is not a "republican form of government";

4. that laws passed by Congress do not apply (to one of the appellants) as a "sovereign citizen of the Union State of Texas";

5. that the United States is not a republican form of government and therefore must be abolished as unconstitutional;

6. that the Secretary of the Treasury's jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia....

and so on....

Take a wild guess as to how the appellants fared at the Court of Appeals.

Then, Harold X. O'Boyle and Sally O'Boyle were involved in a suit to quash an IRS third party summons against First State Bank of the Florida Keys. That was thrown out as well. O'Boyle v. United States, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case no. 07-10006-MC-MOORE/GARBER, June 13, 2007. Among the arguments Mr. O'Boyle unsuccessfully made were the arguments that he was not subject to IRS summons authority because Title 26 of the United States Code is not positive law, and the argument that as long as the petitioners file a timely tax return, the IRS must take their word for it that the return is correct, saying that "a sworn return is the final, irrefutable determinant of liability".



Oh, sorry. Another of PeterEricBlowhardMeister's arguments blown away yet again.

[Famspear]

There is a Harold X. O'Boyle who has filed petitions in U.S. Tax Court:

Should be him. The docket search report shows the state of residence as blank, which is probably what is shown for those living out of the US, and his wife's name does seem to be Sally.

Apparently she also answers to "broad".

Let's see..... he lives in Costa Rica. So, he's abroad, and his wife is a broad.



Got it!

[grixit]

It's what he said in something you quoted earlier, that he's "married to a broad in Costa Rica". Seemed kind of cold to me.

[ASITStands]

It's what he said in something you quoted earlier, that he's "married to a broad in Costa Rica". Seemed kind of cold to me.

Maybe he's married to a broad in Costa Rica and has a wife in the Florida Keys?

Famspear - It's in the EzineArticles Profile you quoted above.

[Famspear]

It's what he said in something you quoted earlier, that he's "married to a broad in Costa Rica". Seemed kind of cold to me.

Maybe he's married to a broad in Costa Rica and has a wife in the Florida Keys?

Famspear - It's in the EzineArticles Profile you quoted above.

Yes, I was just trying to be funny.

[Arthur Rubin]

Yes, I was just trying to be funny.

Keep your day job.

[Famspear]

Yes, I was just trying to be funny.

Keep your day job.

But.... but..... it looks so easy for Leno and Letterman on TV.........