Inhaling the angeldust at LostHeads

[LOBO]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2470

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:27 am Post subject: My Lawsuit Dismissed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Lawsuit was dismissed. Although I have not recieved the "order" through the mail yet, I went to the courthouse and looked at the Fed Courthouse Computer and there was an order for dismissal. I am a bit bummed about this and I am praying that my appeal is victorious. I am going to appeal.
I live in Philadelphia and my trial was being presided over by William Yohn, Jr. at the Fed courtohouse in Philadelphia at 6th and Market. To say that I am angry is an understatement.
I will have to file as a pauper, because of this illegal garnishment my funds are nil and I can't even pay regular living expenses. The wedding that I was planning will not happen the way I wanted it to. I wrote a few months back that I had a major victory in my case when Yohn vacated his previous dismissal. He allowed me leave to explain why my opponet's argument was frivilous. I think he wanted to see just how much I really know about this issue. When I produced copies of the Statutes At Large from the 1860's (I found things that Pete does not even have on his Ctc disk) and showed how they applied only to alcohol and distilled spirits. I also showed how title 27 cross referenced into title 26 and showed the law stating this could not happen.
At that point he knew that I knew what I was talking about. There was no way that he was going to let me get in front of a jury.
The only thing that has me worried is that the last time I filed as a pauper I had to go through him. I feel that this is totally unfair, he rapped me and now gets the opportunity to do it again?!
I will keep you posted
Claudia

Oh the bright side, it's an order for dismissal, not an outright dismissal.


Yet.

[webhick]

The wedding that I was planning will not happen the way I wanted it to.

I wonder if the person he was planning on marrying knows about the wedding.

[.]

I will keep you posted
Claudia

He?

[webhick]

I will keep you posted
Claudia

He?

My bad. I stop reading their brain-babble when I feel my IQ starting to drop, so I usually don't make it to the end.

To save face, my point still stands.

Oh, and to all the little girly-girls in tax denier land: Your wedding books should consist of only your tax filings, correspondence with the IRS, and lien notices. This way, whenever you open the book to dream about your fantasy wedding, you'll be reminded of all the things you did to sabotage it.

[Famspear]

Over at losthorizons, user “justinprime” is having a discussion with fellow scammers about justinprime’s efforts to get his “payer” (in true "Cracking the Code" form, justin does not want to use the term “employer,” of course) to stop withholding from his paycheck. Justin says he received this message from the “payer”:

Justin,

Would you happen to be available earlier on Tues, maybe around 11am or so?

Also I looked up a couple of things to understand the arguments laid out on the [losthorizons] website, the first line of the tax law [link to Internal Revenue Code section 1 at Cornell Law School web site inserted here] is where taxes are imposed on all individuals.

Also I did a quick search on the author of the book and website, please see attached a 2007 judgement against Hendricksons for falsely filing income taxes, they were ordered to pay taxes erroneously refunded, plus interest and penalties and court fees. Also in section 18 of the motion there was a reference to the book Cracking the Code and denies the use of the principal agreements laid out in the book. There have been a number of legal motions made against the Hendricksons including a mail bomb attempt.

Let me know if you would like to proceed with the meeting and if you are available in the morning.

Justin says he responded with something like this:

yes, I want to meet still and the new time is fine

citation given is easily explained tomorrow and I look forward to it.

The attachment to the brief is from '07, Pete now in Supreme Court. The IRS has not disagreed with what Pete says about the tax laws.

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... c&start=30

What!!!??!! Talk about inhaling angel dust! The IRS "has not disagreed" with what Pete says about the tax laws????!!!?? What a liar!

And as far as I recall, Pete no longer has any matter currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Justin continues, commenting on Pete’s conviction in the mail bomb incident:

I am aware of some 'threat,' don't know enough about it, but this should not interefere [sic] with our understanding of the income tax liabilities of myself or the Payer……

Justin admits to being “aware of some threat” regarding the mail bomb incident. Justin is telling the “payer” that Justin just doesn’t “know enough about it”? Come on!

[Gregg]

What really strikes me as backward about him is that he says he works for a non-profit....now let me get this straight, your "payer" is funded at very least with contributions that are tax deductible through a 501 (3)C exemption, if not outright getting government funding, but you still are a "private sector, non federally connected person who takes home money for this"?


rightttt...

[The Operative]

What really strikes me as backward about him is that he says he works for a non-profit....

If he keeps up with this current nonsense, I am certain the emphasized word above will soon be used in the past tense.

[Gregg]

What really strikes me as backward about him is that he says he works for a non-profit....

If he keeps up with this current nonsense, I am certain the emphasized word above will soon be used in the past tense.

Ya know, I marvel at how patient some "private non federal connected payers" are. I own a company with 114 employees, now I don't have anything to do with that kind of stuff, but the very first thing I'd do if they bring all this mumbo jumbo up is tell them fine, you're fired. I can only hint at the irony of them threatening to take me to FEDERAL court to sue me for some crazy theory of why I fired them, and though my attorneys may duct tape me to a chair in the closet to prevent me saying it, I'd love to just tell them "I'm not going to put up with you whining and trying to convince me I'm not some kind of something, not going to listen to you fantasize about suing me for withholding, and frankly I don't want someone as stupid as you doing anything I'm ultimately responsible to customers for."

so there!

[The Operative]

...my attorneys may duct tape me to a chair in the closet to prevent me saying it, I'd love to just tell them "I'm not going to put up with you whining and trying to convince me I'm not some kind of something, not going to listen to you fantasize about suing me for withholding, and frankly I don't want someone as stupid as you doing anything I'm ultimately responsible to customers for."

Remember this phrase..."I fired him for the welfare of the business and its' other employees. What the former employee asked me to do was in violation of the law and he would not take 'no' for an answer."

[LPC]

What really strikes me as backward about him is that he says he works for a non-profit....now let me get this straight, your "payer" is funded at very least with contributions that are tax deductible through a 501 (3)C exemption, if not outright getting government funding, but you still are a "private sector, non federally connected person who takes home money for this"?

Technical issue: Not all nonprofit organizations are tax-exempt, and not all tax-exempt organizations can receive tax-deductible contributions, so "nonprofit" is not synonymous with "tax deductible."

I went back and found the reference to nonprofit, and it does sound like he's working for an organization that supported by tax-deductible dollars (and probably also direct government funding as well), but I still wanted to express some reservations about jumping to that conclusion.

[notorial dissent]

No, part of the statement is that he was asking me to violate the law, Federal and probably state for that matter (tax law), commit perjury, and then to conspire with him in breaking the reporting laws as far as he was concerned.

I would say inducement to commit a felony(maybe misdemeanor???) is more than grounds enough for dismissal in any case.

[iplawyer]

Well - here is the result of Justinprime's meeting with the "fiscal" guy.

UPDATE:
I just got finished speaking with the Fiscal Dept. representative of my Payer. To cut to the chase, my payer is NOT going to stop withholding and if they were to disregard my W4 they would withhold at 30%.

They accepted my Notices of Nullification and Termination. He took the Statement of Understanding, Status & Intent, will review it and give me something in writing recapping our meeting that is signed. Despite the notices, they will continue withholding at the rate indicated on the W4.

The biggest hangup he had was the word "includes." For the sake of time, I did not prepare anything specific on it. Argh. He is open to me sending him more information on the word "includes" and any court rulings as well, which I will do. He was also really hungup on Pete's trial and his lost trials and his bomb threat thing (which I still do not know anything about). Another hangup was the macroeconomic changes that would have to happen and he could not reconcile that. It also didn't make sense to him that the gov't would pay someone, then take the money back. I tried to stay focused on the 'law.' No matter what else, we need to follow the law.

He suggested that I fill out a new W4 claiming many exemptions or claiming exempt. I explained why I could not do this and what 'exempt' means.

He also informed me that the payer receives federal funding. The feds give money to the state which gives money to my agency, about 50%. This seems indirect but I wonder if this creates liability.

He explained his education but admitted that he was never taught the actual law, it was just assumed.

I think he had his mind made up before we began, unfortunately. I understand that my payer is not willing to put their neck out there. I didn't expect them to. Besides, whether or not he personally agrees, that is inconsequential in his role as a representative of the agency.

Overall, it was pleasant. I got the minimum that I wanted and then some. I have created a baseline for myself to bring to the IRS if needed.

I would have just fired the guy.

[Thule]

I think he had his mind made up before we began, unfortunately.

Ohhhh, that pot/kettle thing.

He [employer] was also really hungup on Pete's trial and his lost trials

You mean this unpatriotic, fed-loving emplyerrrrrr, I mean payer think it is relevant that the guy giving tax-related advice is going to jail for tax-related crimes?

I'm shocked....

[Famspear]

The crackhead "Justinprime" wrote:

..........He [the employer's representative] was also really hungup on Pete's trial and his lost trials and his bomb threat thing (which I still do not know anything about).

Yeah, wow, what a silly rabbit that employer must be, eh! Oh it's hard to understand how justinprime's employer (oh, excuse me, his "payer") could think that just because Pete Hendrickson is going back to prison --this time for using his own "Cracking the Code" tax scam on his own tax returns -- and is barred by court order from using the scam on his own tax returns, that somehow there might be anything illegal about someone else -- like "justinprime" -- using the same "Cracking the Code" method. (Oh, sorry, right, I forgot - the scam is not a "method," according to Pete Hendrickson.)

I tried to stay focused on the 'law.' No matter what else, we need to follow the law.

I think we're peering over the Lost Event Horizon, right into The Enormous Black Hole of Stupidity.

[Gregg]

He also informed me that the payer receives federal funding. The feds give money to the state which gives money to my agency, about 50%. This seems indirect but I wonder if this creates liability.

Do you ever wonder how some people remember to breathe?

[Famspear]

Now, "WatchmanOnTheTower" at losthorizons writes:

Well, I've finally gone and done it. I have filed a CtC educated tax return for 2009. I didn't realize it was possible to feel exhilarated and scared witless at the same time.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9a2d#24328

Well, you've finally gone and done it. You might as well get used to feeling scared witless, Einstein.

Nevertheless, onward we go.

Yes, "witless" is the correct term here.

............Thanks, Pete, for writing and publishing CtC.

And while we're at it, thanks to the rodents for spreading the Bubonic Plague during the Middle Ages.

Thanks to Ford for the exploding gas tank on the Ford Pinto.

Thanks to Adolf Hitler for writing that fascinating coffee table book, Mein Kampf, and of course for leading his Aryan Master Race -- marching into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Norway, the Balkans, North Africa..........

[Pottapaug1938]

Wait! The S.S. Cracking the Code hasn't sunk yet! I want to get onboard!!!!!!!

[bmielke]

Wait! The S.S. Cracking the Code hasn't sunk yet! I want to get onboard!!!!!!!

I already got my (real) refund, is it too late to amend CtC style? [whiney little girl] I want a Friv. Pen. Too! [/whiney little girl]

[Gregg]

I didn't realize it was possible to feel exhilarated and scared witless at the same time.

That's the very small amount of common sense you have resisting the more dominant flaming stupidity.

[The Observer]

The biggest hangup he had was the word "includes."

Strange - I thought it was Pete Hendrickson, the Crackheads and other TPs who had the biggest hangup over the word "includes."

I think he had his mind made up before we began, unfortunately.

Strange - I thought it was Pete Hendrickson, the Crackheads and other TPs who had their minds already made up, contrary to what the law and the courts say.

He explained his education but admitted that he was never taught the actual law, it was just assumed.

Oh, well at least the "payer" was honest - you'd never find a Crackhead admitting that they just assumed that Pete was correct about what he was claiming and that they never bothered to honestly look for the truth.