Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
Location: Seattle

Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

Post by jcolvin2 »

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed a possibly tax related (it's hard to tell) pro se complaint, asking for "nine hundred trillions [sic] dollars":
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/s ... cv1303-5-0
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

Post by Famspear »

Walter Allen should have asked for a lot more. Paltry sums like that just don't get anyone's attention any more.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
KickahaOta
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:45 pm

Re: Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

Post by KickahaOta »

For those who want to see if they can tell, I downloaded the complaint. Rarely has the comment "Go nuts" seemed more appropriate.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aot6t7hrbQ2kkONeQnB ... w?e=05c7iA
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

Post by notorial dissent »

What an immense waste of judicial resources.

Unless I have badly misread this latest effort in what 7-8? This bozo has his shorts in a twist because the NYCERS would NOT take an additional $900,000,000,000,000.00 of Federal Income Tax from his pension payment. Seriously!!!!! Personally I think they should have just followed through and withheld his entire pension payment to meet the request, although I vaguely recall from years gone by that over withholding more than a reasonable amount like accepting ridiculous numbers of exemptions is generally frowned upon. Then he's bent because they didn't and he wants one hundred million zillion dollars from someone??? because they didn't do it, as well as a whole lot of things that CoC simply can't do. Basically, he can't sue NYCERS for following the tax law, and he can't sue them civilly at CoC, and he can't, and I don't think did, sue the gov't for NYCERS following the law. So he doesn't have a cognizable case, CoC has no jurisdiction, and this is all basically a waste of time. I can't help wondering what the CoC did to warrant his attentions. Maybe he just looked up courts and stuck a pin in them in the yellow pages.

I am now quite certain that his previous attempts at pro se lawyerin' were equally of merit and filled with crunchy goodness.

It is encouraging that he finally got vex litted, but I am more inclined to think he needs a serious mental health evaluation more than anything else.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

Post by noblepa »

I don't get it, either.

Was he asking that NYCERS withhold $900T, so he could then file a 1040, asking for a refund of that amount?
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Walter Allen - Serious CrayCray in the CFC

Post by notorial dissent »

noblepa wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:09 pm I don't get it, either.

Was he asking that NYCERS withhold $900T, so he could then file a 1040, asking for a refund of that amount?
This latest? filing just had to do with the unrealistic withholding? Maybe one of the others has to do with actual taxes. I agree with the judge, the filing was largely if not totally incomprehensible, and it was handwritten, of course, so I will put this down as a guess rather than certainty.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.