Weston White's CTC Forum

[Quixote]

If the posts at Losthorizons aren't crazy enough for you, check out The CTC Warrior, Weston White's new CTC forum. Sadly, there's only one active thread and if gimmer's request is honored, it could be gone soon.

Posted by gimmer on 8/14:

Weston,
Please remove the thread (3121(a) and 3401(a) wages) I started and my account from this site.
I'd do it myself but there is no links to accomplish this.
I want no part of this website where any idiot can join and peddle sh*t.
I want no association to this site or anyone posting on this site.

Please remove everything about me from this site including the threads I started.

The particular idiot that concerns gimmer is MN Stix. MN Stix shot down gimmer's crazy social-security-credits-is-a-federal-nexus argument and tried to push his own idea about ... uh ... Well, no one has quite figured out what MN Stix's idea is, but he and gimmer are cutting and pasting like there's no tomorrow.

[Famspear]

Ah, poetic justice. After having skimmed just a few of the entries (and after having PDF'd the whole thread as posted so far, just for fun), a few late Saturday night chuckles are welcome, as I watch those narcissistic half-wit monkeys throw their respective brands of doofus tax denier drivel nonsense at each other -- slamming both Irwin Schiff's scam and Peter Hendrickson's scam, boiling with anger, and railing and screeching at each other.

They deserve each other.

[Famspear]

Here's a curious mixture of partial lucidity and continuing delusion, from user "IMFResearch," a former follower of Hendrickson (bolding added):

I had hoped to add some common sense to the discussion, as my experience has shown that neither a "zero" return, ala Irwin Schiff, nor a "Cracking the Code" return, ala Pete Hendrickson, works in the real world.

Sooner or later, the IRS will get around to imposing a frivolous penalty for making either claim, and sooner or later, they'll get around to making an assessment by substitute return if any sort of "wages" or "compensation" has been reported (whether challenged or not), and sooner or later, we'll face lien or levy.

That does not mean that I believe "resistance is futile!" Far from it. It's just that I make neither a "zero" return nor a "Cracking the Code" claim, as both lead to frivolous penalties and eventual tax and penalty assessments.

I do not challenge the authority of the IRS to impose a tax. However, I do challenge their authority to impose penalties. When the IRS proposes an assessment (by issuing a 30-Day or 90-Day Letter), the only way to dispute the numbers in their proposal is to prepare a return and challenge the facts of their numbers.

They are not going to accept "zero"[,] no matter how you arrive at it (by correcting the W-2 or 1099 reporting). You have to give the "trier of facts" something more than "zero," or they'll accept the amounts proposed by the IRS, and an assessment will have been made. It becomes res judicata and much more difficult to dispute.

I take my legal arguments to tax and appellate court. I have written briefs for many tax court cases, and I've taken many of those cases to the appellate circuit. I've even taken some to the Supreme Court.

I challenge the authority of the IRS to impose civil penalties on the basis of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and I challenge their authority to impose criminal penalties on the basis of Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I try to place a "trial by jury" (as guaranteed by a State Constitution) between the litigant and the IRS.

In the case of a notice of tax lien, when did the litigant receive a "trial by jury" in regard to the liability?

There can be no tax lien until a Person is made liable, and a Person cannot be made liable until neglect or refusal to pay after notice and demand, and there can be no notice and demand until an assessment has been made.

Each step has requirements and limitations set out in statutes and regulations, and failure to comply gives rise to an action in court. Discovery and "trial by jury" become important in defeating enforced collection. I do not dispute the imposition of a tax but enforced collection of other or greater sums than authorized by law.

Because I know Form 1040 does not comply with either the statutory requirements at 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(B) nor the regulatory commands at 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), I am not required to file Form 1040, but if I do, because I want to dispute the amounts proposed by the IRS, the IRS does not have a right to enforced collections.

It has been my experience, in order to save marriages, jobs and sanity, most People "bite the bullet" at some point and file a return, disputing the numbers proposed (or assessed) by the IRS, and at some point, most People enter some form of installment agreement to keep the IRS at bay while disputing other issues.

It is my experience that most People can have more success by challenging enforced collections or the imposition of amounts greater than authorized by law, such as penalties and interest, by whatever argument they choose.

It is important to keep "mind and body" together (and marriages, as well), and it is important to choose an argument with a chance of success, and the right opportunity to dispute the numbers proposed by the IRS, and it is important to challenge their authority to impose penalties, taxes, interest and enforced collections.

Your mileage may vary, but I have not known anyone who has successfully challenged the imposition of a tax.

There is no reason to make your own proposal until the IRS comes calling, but once they do, one of the weapons is to prepare your own return to challenge the numbers (and facts) presented by the IRS. And, I'm not speaking of a "zero" return or a "Cracking the Code" return. Neither claim will be accepted and leads only to frustration.

We can argue about tax law all day, and I generally don't take part in those kind of "cut and paste" discussions.

In my opinion, it's fruitless to make an argument based upon the meaning of words. It turns only on a "reading" of statutes and regulations and has nothing to do with the reality of case law. Issue are resolved by case law. That's true in both administrative dealings with the IRS and any action you wish to take in the courts.

No. Resistance is not futile! Just pick your arguments and your time to make your resistance.

http://ctcwarrior.us/Forum/viewtopic.ph ... p=158#p158

[notorial dissent]

I would say, says a lot, of little value, is a more apt description.

A great long meandering screed saying nothing useful, and making a great many promises that objectively cannot be met.

[The Observer]

I had hoped to add some common sense to the discussion, as my experience has shown that neither a "zero" return, ala Irwin Schiff, nor a "Cracking the Code" return, ala Pete Hendrickson, works in the real world.

Sooner or later, the IRS will get around to imposing a frivolous penalty for making either claim, and sooner or later, they'll get around to making an assessment by substitute return if any sort of "wages" or "compensation" has been reported (whether challenged or not), and sooner or later, we'll face lien or levy.

But of course. This is what TPs never seem to stop and think about. Do they really think that the government, after being in the taxation business for nearly 225 years, would not have encoded provisions that allowed them to proceed with assessing and collecting tax when the taxpayer failed to voluntarily comply?

That does not mean that I believe "resistance is futile!" Far from it. It's just that I make neither a "zero" return nor a "Cracking the Code" claim, as both lead to frivolous penalties and eventual tax and penalty assessments.

Uh, guess what - even if you don't file a return, the government will eventually file a return for you and then assess tax and penalties and interest. You avoid the frivpen but you can only claim a moral victory at that point.

I take my legal arguments to tax and appellate court. I have written briefs for many tax court cases, and I've taken many of those cases to the appellate circuit. I've even taken some to the Supreme Court.

Maybe I am just being cynical, but is there any reason why you didn't provide at least some cites for court cases where your legal arguments were used? Note that I am not asking for any cases where you actually had a victory - I imagine that there are none or you would have shared that in immense detail.

I challenge the authority of the IRS to impose civil penalties on the basis of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and I challenge their authority to impose criminal penalties on the basis of Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I try to place a "trial by jury" (as guaranteed by a State Constitution) between the litigant and the IRS.

At least you are honest - you can try. But given the fact that contesting a civil penalty is not a criminal matter, you aren't entitled to a trial by jury.

In the case of a notice of tax lien, when did the litigant receive a "trial by jury" in regard to the liability?

In the case of a notice of tax lien, when has ever such a matter been defined by law as being a criminal charge?

There can be no tax lien until a Person is made liable, and a Person cannot be made liable until neglect or refusal to pay after notice and demand, and there can be no notice and demand until an assessment has been made.

Wow, you actually were able to correctly explain how a tax lien arises. And this is exactly what happens when you fail to file and the IRS files a return for you, the proposed tax is assessed, you get a notice asking for payment, and then you fail to pay it - tada! Tax lien.

Discovery and "trial by jury" become important in defeating enforced collection.

Except no federal court is going to empanel a jury to render a verdict about enforced collections. You can file a timely Collection Due Process claim regarding enforced collection and appeal the IRS determination to the federal courts, but you are going to get a hearing and a ruling from a federal judge, not a jury.

[wserra]

is there any reason why you didn't provide at least some cites for court cases where your legal arguments were used?

Yes.

[wserra]

Well, no one has quite figured out what MN Stix's idea is

You know it's time for the hip boots when ...
...
#137: Someone begins a post "Let me tell you straight up warriors the ctc was close but here are the facts."

That's quite a thread. Picture Archie Plutonium and Kent Hovind "debating" evolutionary biology.

[LPC]

I like the symbol of the "CtC Warrior," which is a heavily armored knight.

Heavily armored knights were slow, clumsy, and often defeated in full-scale wars. And they were defeated not by the introduction of gunpowder, but by the simple Welsh longbow. For example, the longbow played a decisive role in helping the English to defeat the more numerous and more heavily armored French at the battle of Agincourt in 1415.

So the CtC warrior is best symbolized by a warrior who lost often and decisively hundreds of years ago, and is now a thoroughly useless and ineffective anachronism? A picture of dodo bird might have been as apt.

[Thule]

So the CtC warrior is best symbolized by a warrior who lost often and decisively hundreds of years ago, and is now a thoroughly useless and ineffective anachronism? A picture of dodo bird might have been as apt.

But wait, there's more. Even after disastrous losses at Hattin, Crecy, Poitiers, Grünewald and Nicopolis, the proponents of heavy cavalry stubbornly maintained that knights were invincible.

The stubborn refusal to admit that that they were clinging to a failed method makes the knight a truly fitting symbol for the CtC-movement.

[Thule]

Im sure that in losing, they saw that the whole charge-into-the-enemy idea was fundamentally sound and correct.

[Gregg]

Designated area for entrenched debates with so-called "tax professionals" (TP). Here it is cold-reality, the facts and law mono a mono with the lies spouted by agent provocateurs, propagandists, and the socialist establishment.

Mano a Mano?

Or Peter's best screeds delivered in a monotone?

[Lambkin]

Designated area for entrenched debates with so-called "tax professionals" (TP). Here it is cold-reality, the facts and law mono a mono with the lies spouted by agent provocateurs, propagandists, and the socialist establishment.

Mano a Mano?

Or Peter's best screeds delivered in a monotone?

I think that's where tax deniers win arguments against the voices in their heads.

[notorial dissent]

Remember, there were advocates of horse mounted cavalry charges in the early days of WWI, which worked out sooooo well for the cavalry.

Balaclava being another good use of cavalry as I recall. Somehow, horses and riders(armored or not) against rifles, artillery, machine gun fire, not a good thing, and yet they kept doing it!!!!!

[webhick]

I read Weston's Forum Error Log thread and I couldn't help but laugh. He seems to be installing multitudes of mods without testing them first and, as a result, keeps screwing up the forum. Weston, honey, always mount a scratch monkey. I also think he's messing about with the template without knowing what he's doing because we use the Glacier one here and I certainly did not find the files to be "falling apart," "missing buttons," or contain "broken graphics." Not even after I messed with them (our current issues relate more to the re-themeing than actual problems with the templates themselves. I found a few more color issues in obscure areas of the forum, so I'm still working on it).

[Pantherphil]

Actually, the charge of the Heavy Brigade under the command of General Scarlett at Balaclava was a considerable success, routing the Russian cavalry in the South Valley in support of General Campbell's "thin red line" of Highlanders. Had the Light Brigade been employed more effectively at this time to exploit the success of the Heavies in the South Valley, the battle might have had a different outcome. However, through a series of command snafus ("someone had blundered"), the Light Brigade went off in the wrong direction. The apparent intent of higher command was for the Light Brigade to attack the Causeway Heights to prevent the Russians from withdrawing captured British guns in the redoubts located on the heights ("Charge for the guns," he said). But due to a number of confusing orders and personality issues and differing perspectives of the battlefield, the Light Brigade gallantly but erroneously mounted a charge against the Russian guns in the North Valley exposing themselves to fire from three sides. Although they successfully penetrated the Russian artillery line ("right through the line they broke" and "sabring the gunners there"), the Brigade's survivors were too weak a force to hold the guns against the thousands of Russian infantry available to support and thus withdrew in some disorder.

Interesting that everyone remembers Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade (which gallantly failed) but almost no one recalls his Charge of the Heavy Brigade (which equally gallantly succeeded.)

THE CHARGE OF THE HEAVY BRIGADE AT BALACLAVA


October 25, 1854

I.
The charge of the gallant three hundred, the Heavy Brigade!
Down the hill, down the hill, thousands of Russians,
Thousands of horsemen, drew to the valley–and stay’d;
For Scarlett and Scarlett’s three hundred were riding by
When the points of the Russian lances arose in the sky;
And he call’d, ‘Left wheel into line!’ and they wheel’d and obey’d.
Then he look’d at the host that had halted he knew not why,
And he turn’d half round, and he bade his trumpeter sound
To the charge, and he rode on ahead, as he waved his blade
To the gallant three hundred whose glory will never die–
‘Follow,’ and up the hill, up the hill, up the hill,
Follow’d the Heavy Brigade.



II.
The trumpet, the gallop, the charge, and the might of the fight!
Thousands of horsemen had gather’d there on the height,
With a wing push’d out to the left and a wing to the right,
And who shall escape if they close? but he dash’d up alone
Thro’ the great gray slope of men,
Sway’d his sabre, and held his own
Like an Englishman there and then.
All in a moment follow’d with force
Three that were next in their fiery course,
Wedged themselves in between horse and horse,
Fought for their lives in the narrow gap they had made–
Four amid thousands! and up the hill, up the hill,
Gallopt the gallant three hundred, the Heavy Brigade.



III.
Fell like a cannon-shot,
Burst like a thunderbolt,
Crash’d like a hurricane,
Broke thro’ the mass from below,
Drove thro’ the midst of the foe,
Plunged up and down, to and fro,
Rode flashing blow upon blow,
Brave Inniskillens and Greys
Whirling their sabres in circles of light!
And some of us, all in amaze,
Who were held for a while from the fight,
And were only standing at gaze,
When the dark-muffled Russian crowd
Folded its wings from the left and the right,
And roll’d them around like a cloud,–
O, mad for the charge and the battle were we,
When our own good redcoats sank from sight,
Like drops of blood in a dark-gray sea,
And we turn’d to each other, whispering, all dismay’d,
‘Lost are the gallant three hundred of Scarlett’s Brigade!’



IV.
‘Lost one and all’ were the words
Mutter’d in our dismay;
But they rode like victors and lords
Thro’ the forest of lances and swords
In the heart of the Russian hordes,
They rode, or they stood at bay–
Struck with the sword-hand and slew,
Down with the bridle-hand drew
The foe from the saddle and threw
Underfoot there in the fray–
Ranged like a storm or stood like a rock
In the wave of a stormy day;
Till suddenly shock upon shock
Stagger’d the mass from without,
Drove it in wild disarray,
For our men gallopt up with a cheer and a shout,
And the foeman surged, and waver’d, and reel’d
Up the hill, up the hill, up the hill, out of the field,
And over the brow and away.



V.
Glory to each and to all, and the charge that they made!
Glory to all the three hundred, and all the Brigade!


Note.–The ‘three hundred’ of the ‘Heavy Brigade’ who made
this famous charge were the Scots Greys and the 2d squadron
of Inniskillens; the remainder of the ‘Heavy Brigade’ subsequently
dashing up to their support.

The ‘three’ were Scarlett’s aide-de-camp, Elliot, and the trumpeter,
and Shegog the orderly, who had been close behind him.

[Thule]

Interesting that everyone remembers Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade (which gallantly failed) but almost no one recalls his Charge of the Heavy Brigade (which equally gallantly succeeded.)

It's important to gloss over your failures and sell them off as moral victories. Both in the military and in TP-land.

[wserra]

Weston, honey, always mount a scratch monkey.

I'm not interested in his private life or what its name is.

[grixit]

I suggest it's the lack of any line comparable to "theirs is but to do or die".

[Paul]

Actually, it's "theirs but to do AND die," which puts an entirely different spin on things.

Kinda like my favorite example of how crazy you need to be to succeed at war -- during the battle of Gallipoli, Attaturk gave a pep talk to the troops where he told them they would win because the British soldier was good because he was not afraid to die, but the Turkish soldier was better because he wanted to die. They cheered him, of course, and went on to win.

[LDE]

Designated area for entrenched debates with so-called "tax professionals" (TP). Here it is cold-reality, the facts and law mono a mono with the lies spouted by agent provocateurs, propagandists, and the socialist establishment.

Weston, honey, always mount a scratch monkey.

Webhick, I think he's ahead of you. Mono a mono is Spanish for 'monkey to monkey.'