Clogging the System

[LPC]

The 10th Circuit has issued a rather terse opinion in Marian L. Moline v. Commissioner, No. 09-9011 (10th Cir. 2/3/2010), affirming T.C. Memo. 2009-110 (which can be found in this archived Quatloos thread).

MARIAN L. MOLINE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

(CIR No. 171-07L)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Marian L. Moline is another tax protester who insists on clogging the system with ridiculous arguments. She appeals an adverse decision of the Tax Court. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7483. We affirm for the reasons cogently explained in the Tax Court's memorandum opinion in this case.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTE

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

END OF FOOTNOTE

[wserra]

Marian L. Moline is another tax protester who insists on clogging the system with ridiculous arguments.

If a court really believes that, what is the problem with sanctions? Isn't that what they're for?

Sorry, guys, but you can't bitch about something which you have the power to deter, but don't exercise it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Somehow I don't think even several thousands of dollars in sanctions is something the lunatic fringe is worried about. When your wages (if you are employed) are garnished and your money (if you have a bank account) and property (if you own anything) are seized, what's left?

The courts are victims of Congress' insatiable appetite for twiddling with a cripplingly obtuse code that is susceptible to deliberate obfuscation by crackpot promoters.

[The Observer]

But simplification of the code isn't going to stop the crackpots from trying to find some new excuse for rationalizing (and selling it to others below them on the intellectual ladder) why they don't have to pay taxes to the government (or have to apply for driver's licenses or have to obey traffic laws or have to apply for building permits or have to send their kids to school or have to use FRNs or have to participate in a courtroom with gold-fringed flags).

It is the mere existence of a law that the crackpots perceive as being an unnecessary infringement on their lives that starts the ball rolling. It matters little to them whether the system provides an avenue of redress to them or not; they will create their own route to freedom (as witness the idiocy of the petition of grievances generated by the WtP nut brigade).

[wserra]

But simplification of the code isn't going to stop the crackpots from trying to find some new excuse for rationalizing (and selling it to others below them on the intellectual ladder) why they don't have to pay taxes to the government

What he said.

You don't get much simpler than "includes".

[Pottapaug1938]

But simplification of the code isn't going to stop the crackpots from trying to find some new excuse for rationalizing (and selling it to others below them on the intellectual ladder) why they don't have to pay taxes to the government

What he said.

You don't get much simpler than "includes".

The problem is that these crackpots can't handle anything that simple. To them, if a classification "includes" A, B and C, then D, E and F are excluded from that classification. That's why you see the ugly "includes, but is not limited to" construction in legislation and regulations.

[Gregg]

Case in point, just how close are we to a finding from a court that says "The "CTC" method of tax return filing is frivolous" and yet they not only still do it, they act surprised when it happens to them...

[Nikki]

The correct finding would have to be "a tax return or amended return prepared according to guidance supplied by PH in his book Cracking the Code is fraudulent in the specific sense that the person who has filed the return has done so specifically to evade paying taxes"

The court has to be specific since there's no such thing as a "CTC method" -- it's filing a CtC-educated return

Also, "frivolous" is meaningless to the LoserHeads since His Royal Blowhardness has provided tons of carefully excerpted court decisions to support his theory.

The exact same language would have to be repeated in case after case after case -- preferably with specific reference to the litigant's position on Pete's victory wall -- before the possibility even began to creep into the TPs' skulls.

Even if that were to happen, they'd just move on to another guru.

[LPC]

The courts are victims of Congress' insatiable appetite for twiddling with a cripplingly obtuse code that is susceptible to deliberate obfuscation by crackpot promoters.

The average tax moron can't even understand the 16th Amendment, which is only 30 words long. They think that "income" has some special meaning that is completely different than the meaning found in dictionaries. They think that "from whatever source derived" means that Congress can't tax income without first identifying the source of the income. They think that Congress can't tax income from labor without apportionment even though the amendment specifically says that Congress can tax incomes withOUT apportionment.

If the 16th Amendment is susceptible to deliberate obfuscation by crackpot promoters, then EVERYTHING is susceptible to deliberate obfuscation by crackpot promoters whether or not it is obtuse, cripplingly or otherwise.

Remember Schiller.

[notorial dissent]

The main point being that they don’t want to pay taxes, and will look for any excuse to not do so, logic and reality be damned. If it takes twisting a common word or definition until it screams, then so be it. If it takes pretending that a misspelling or slight alteration of words in the approval of a constitutional amendment voids the whole thing, then they will believe that with all their might. There is no real attempt at or desire for logic or reason here, just justification, so the only solution is just to make it as obvious as possible to them that this particularly fantasy isn’t going to fly and never will. The problem is that they would far rather believe in their fantasy than face reality, so they will continue running stark naked into the that big brass door knob.

I also agree with Judge Bean here in that the courts really do need to start smacking these idiots, whether the fines mean anything or not to them, the action means that they aren’t getting away with it.

[illiterati]

I hate to pile on but JRB and Nikki highlight the whole prob. It doesn't really matter what the courts say, unless the courts pull their heads out of their arses. 99% of the people in the country would laugh and scoff at the crap that is filed in courts around the country by TDs but the courts seem unwilling to put the smack down until it becomes painfully obvious on paper. Someone has to be able to pick out the lunacy up front and put the hammer down right away. Why are educated people afraid to do this? It seems like many are willling to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of failure to state a claim or whatever...can't we all just speak in english? I must be too naive. Tell these people that they're going to prison if they don't knock it off and it makes it more likely that they will go to prison if they don't knock it off! I mean, really, current partisanship in our G aside, don't most Ds and Rs agree that these people are wasting a considerable amount of time and paper?