David L. Miner

[Famspear]

Someone named "David L. Miner" apparently wrote this, which I found at Bob Hurt's web site:

From: David Miner

Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 6:12:19 AM

Subject: Hendrickson and "Cracking the Code" Warriors get Cracked.

First, Pete's case had nothing to do with CtC techniques. I have chatted with him a number of times over the past 6 months, and the initial charges all the way through the final staments [sic] all dealt with the honesty of Pete's statements and claims about the so-called income tax - did he or did he not believe what he was telling so many people over so many years? The case was about his truthfulness, and not about his techniques.

This means the IRS can't use Pete's conviction to go after CtC filers, because CtC filing has not yet been alleged much less adjudicated as being wrong and illegal.

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 6218b08b35

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First, it is actually correct to say that "the IRS cannot use Pete's conviction to go after CtC filers." But that's because, under the U.S. legal system, prosecutors cannot "use" defendant A's conviction to "go after" defendant B anyway. That has nothing to do with whether the merits of Pete Hendrickson's scam were adjudicated in his criminal trial or not.

Second, the merits of Hendrickson's CtC scam HAVE been adjudicated -- in a civil tax proceeding involving Hendrickson himself, and in other civil tax proceedings involving some of his followers. And the scam has indeed been ruled to be invalid - in short, wrong and illegal.

David Miner continues:

Second, Pete's CtC techniques did not make a direct claim to being a non-taxpayer. His methods merely filed taxpayer forms to correct certain presumptions about the money the filers made. If Pete's methodology involved making a direct claim about being a non-taxpayer, then there would be no need to file forms every year. A non-taxpayer does not need to have taxes withheld or file federal forms at all. I am listed in the IRS records as a non-taxpayer not required to file a return, and I have filed no returns and paid no income taxes in 20 years. Pete's process doesn't even go there. I know because he and I have talked about that extensively several times over more than 6 years.

Sorry, but that's just more mindless drivel, Mr. Miner.

Miner closes with a link to his own web site:

http://www.IRx-Solutions.com

Among the blatantly false statements made by Miner at his web site:

.......there is one issue that has consistently won against the IRS in court.

There is no section of the Internal Revenue Code or its enabling regulations that requires me, an individual American NOT involved in a revenue-taxable activity, to file a Form 1040 or pay income taxes.

All efforts to get you free from the IRS absolutely must focus on that one issue and absolutely must downplay or totally ignore the rest of the arguments.

http://www.irx-solutions.com/program.htm

Earth calling: That, of course, is a blatant lie, Mr. Miner. That argument has never, ever won against the Internal Revenue Service in a court of law.

Mr. Miner lists himself as being located in Altamonte Springs, Florida. He charges $1,800 in advance for his "services".

[LPC]

Someone named "David L. Miner" apparently wrote this,

The name seems familiar, but I'm not finding any record on where or how I might have encountered him before.

First, Pete's case had nothing to do with CtC techniques. I have chatted with him a number of times over the past 6 months, and the initial charges all the way through the final staments [sic] all dealt with the honesty of Pete's statements and claims about the so-called income tax - did he or did he not believe what he was telling so many people over so many years? The case was about his truthfulness, and not about his techniques.

I'm not sure whether this is a deliberate lie, or is "bullshit" (as defined by Prof. Harry Frankfurt) from someone who simply doesn't care about truth or falsity.

Hendrickson was charged with ten counts of willfully filing false documents (five years of Forms 1040 and 4852) with the IRS. In order to convict him of those charges, the government had to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that (a) the documents that Hendrickson filed contained false information and (b) Hendrickson *knew* that the documents were false (in order to prove the element of "willfully"). The way that Miner (and others) describe the charges is ridiculous, because it leads to the conclusion that the government convicted Hendrickson of filing "false" tax returns that were legally correct (or might be legally correct).

In the opinion entered on 4/26/2010 that denied Hendrickson's motion for a verdict nov (or a new trial), the judge specifically rejected Hendrickson's challenges to the instructions given to the jury on the meanings of “wages” and “employee,” the court stating that Hendrickson “was not entitled to jury instructions reflecting his own views as to the purported meanings of the terms 'wages' and 'employee' under the Internal Revenue Code” because “the courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable 'wages' under the Internal Revenue Code.” The court also pointed out that the judgment against Hendrickson in the erroneous refund suit described above was an “explicit rejection” of his position. United States v. Peter Hendrickson, 2010 TNT 81-15, n. 5, No. 2:08-cr-20585-DML-DAS (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 4/26/2010).

And the charges against Hendrickson related to his *own* income tax returns. The "honesty of Pete's statements and claims about the so-called income tax - did he or did he not believe what he was telling so many people over so many years" had nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes he was charged with.

But some people are always going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

[Demosthenes]

Dave Miner has been posting on the various yahoo groups for years. Here's a gem from the HHoD (hard drive o' Demo):

From: "Dave Miner" <dminer@freedomsite.net>
Date: May 15, 2005 5:40:57 PM EDT
To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] FORCE
Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Tiberius --

You are absolutely correct in reporting that almost all Patriots lose to the
IRS when they choose to not file or fight the IRS by any other means. The
the fact that most lose to the IRS does not mean there is no way to win.

It is also a fact that the vast majority of Patriots who face court by
themselves lose. But the FACT that this track record need not continue is
perhaps the root reason why this group exists.

You CAN stop the IRS cold. It is done quite regularly by those who cheat on
their taxes and have enough money to hire the best legal specialists.

These specialists know loopholes and technically effective tactics that win with
regularity.

I have worked with thousands over more than 15 years and have not lost one
client to the clutches of the IRS.

Joe Sweet, formerly of the Joy Foundation, has an awesome track record over
20 years.

LaMarr Hardy of the Reliance Foundation has an awesome track record over 20
years.

John Dunn of Little Rock has an awesome track record, although over a shorter time.

And there are others. Just because you have not heard of the thousands of
non-filers helped by us does not mean we are not effective.

But the "trick" to any long-term success with the IRS is getting the
inaccurate and invalid entries in your IMF in front of the right people. If
you IMF has you listed as a business, and every IMF I have reviewed has the
individual listed as a business, then you will most likely not win against
the IRS. The IRS is allowed to presume that its records are accurate.
You can claim anything you want but the IRS will ignore you and move forward
unless and until your IMF reflects accurately that you are an individual
that is not required to file and pay and with no balance due in your IMF.
When you get to that point, you will see the IRS go away and leave you
alone.

And Peterson's book shows the best way to retrieve the funds unlawfully
removed from your paycheck. But it does not change your IMF and get the IRS
to leave you alone. It is excellent, and something that seems to work most
of the time (but not all the time). But it still leaves your IMF with wrong
entries in it, so the IRS will be back next year. Peterson's approach is an
excellent first half, but it is only the first half, or the battle.

The IRS does what it wants because we don't know HOW to stop it, NOT because
it CAN'T be stopped.

Yours in financial freedom,

Dave Miner
<http://www.irx-solutions.com/> http://www.IRx-Solutions.com

[Demosthenes]

Joe Sweet, formerly of the Joy Foundation, has an awesome track record over 20 years.

Sweet was convicted on all counts in federal court in March and will be sentenced on June 8, 2010.

LaMarr Hardy of the Reliance Foundation has an awesome track record over 20
years.

Lamarr Hardy was indicted three years prior to this yahoo post, was convicted on all counts two days prior to this post, and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence. An awesome track record indeed.

John Dunn of Little Rock has an awesome track record, although over a shorter time.

Anyone ever heard of this guru?

[Gregg]

Here's a gem from the HHoD (hard drive o' Demo):

Your power terrifies me sometimes

[Cathulhu]

This loser doesn't even know about IMF accounts. He mixes the terminology with BMF accounts in a way that the IRS computer system can't. Just more nonsense that fools the stupid people.

[buck09]

Dave Miner has been posting on the various yahoo groups for years. Here's a gem from the HHoD (hard drive o' Demo):

That's pretty astounding. If you haven't already, make sure you're backing up your data off-site. I recommend services such as Mozy or Carbonite for such purposes. I'm not trying to shill for any company, but you've got a lot of information aggregated in a way that nobody (aside from the Illuminati) does.

[Demosthenes]

I use Mozy for offsite plus an in-house server for onsite backups.

[Imalawman]

John Dunn of Little Rock has an awesome track record, although over a shorter time.

Anyone ever heard of this guru?

The name sounds familiar to me, but I can't place it...

[Harvester]

Actually, There is no section of the Internal Revenue Code or its enabling regulations that requires David Miner, or me, individual Americans NOT involved in a revenue-taxable activity, to file a Form 1040 or pay income taxes. You Famspear are the liar. A court disagreeing with us does not make us wrong, although on the surface to most people it might appear so. There's alot a stake here in this scam, trillions annually. No one on the receiving end is going to let it end without a fight. "Permit me to issue & control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." ~ MAR

[Nikki]

Looks like he found a fresh stash of moron juice.

[Famspear]

Actually, There is no section of the Internal Revenue Code or its enabling regulations that requires David Miner, or me, individual Americans NOT involved in a revenue-taxable activity, to file a Form 1040 or pay income taxes. You Famspear are the liar. A court disagreeing with us does not make us wrong, although on the surface to most people it might appear so. There's alot a stake here in this scam, trillions annually. No one on the receiving end is going to let it end without a fight. "Permit me to issue & control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." ~ MAR

No, am not a liar. You, Harvester are a liar, and so is David Miner.

Yes, the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations require you to file federal income tax returns and pay income taxes.

Yes, when a court disagrees with you, that means that YOU ARE WRONG.

Under the U.S. legal system, the determination of WHAT THE LAW IS is made by the court, not by YOU.

The federal income tax is not a "scam." You, however, are a scammer.

[Nikki]

He's not a scammer. That requires a modicum of intelligence.

[jg]

Actually, There is no section of the Internal Revenue Code or its enabling regulations that requires David Miner, or me, individual Americans NOT involved in a revenue-taxable activity, to file a Form 1040 or pay income taxes. <snip>

Do tell:
What is a "revenue-taxable activity" ? (Is it defined in the law? )
Are there any court decisions that confirm that only such activity is subject to income tax?

[LPC]

A court disagreeing with us does not make us wrong,

Don't think of it as "wrong." Think of it as "losing."

Your arguments are losers. They have always lost in court, and they will always lose in court.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce.” Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock, 7/3/1874. Or, more famously: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” The Paths of the Law (1897).

It's not about "right" or "wrong," but about winning or losing in court. And you're losing.

If you want to lose and still think you're "right," you're welcome to do so, but you're still going to lose.

And please don't start whining that "the courts are corrupt." When in comes to Hendrickson's gibberish, the courts rule the way that they rule because the Constitution and the Congress tell them to.

[Gregg]

Among the crowd who are getting so excited and talking about making a citizen's arrest of a Federal Judge, a major bone in their throat seems to be that the Judge didn't give the text of the law in the jury instructions. Now, permit me, a poor unschooled non practicing accountant from Argillite Kentucky to ask, is it not a foundation of law that juries decide facts, but the interpretation of law is the job of the judge. Or, in the instant case, the Judge gets to say "Pete is an employee, the payments made are wages" and the jury is pretty much deciding if Pete did or did not receive the money and did or did not know he got it and should have declared it?
So, the employer shows the cashed checks, drag in the HR person to say "yep, he worked here" and the jury decides if that means, well, he worked there? And if he worked there, it's not the jury's job to decide what the payments are, the Judge gets to do that?

Hell, that just rambled along, but you get the gist. Excuse the lack of coherence, it may be my medication making me a little dopey, or maybe just reading LH makes me dumber, I dunno.

[Harvester]

Do tell:
What is a "revenue-taxable activity" ? (Is it defined in the law? )

Oh yes. Mr. Zuniga includes them in his exhaustive list of "facts" concluding with:

"47. In the calendar year specified above, to the best of my knowledge I did not engage in any activity regulated under authority of Title 27 of the United States Code."

http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com/20 ... facts.html

And here's a concise summary of the meaning of “Income”:
http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.ht ... ngOfIncome

[Demosthenes]

It must bum you out that Phil Hart pays state and federal income taxes.

[Famspear]

Do tell:
What is a "revenue-taxable activity" ? (Is it defined in the law? )

Oh yes. Mr. Zuniga includes them in his exhaustive list of "facts" concluding with:

"47. In the calendar year specified above, to the best of my knowledge I did not engage in any activity regulated under authority of Title 27 of the United States Code."

http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com/20 ... facts.html

And here's a concise summary of the meaning of “Income”:
http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.ht ... ngOfIncome

Dear Harvester/johnthetaxist/Nationwide: David Zuniga is just as clueless as you are, and just as unable to explain himself. We've been through all this before.

Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code, or any other statute, or in any regulation, is there any requirement that the federal income tax be tied to an "activity". And "income" does not mean what Hendrickson says it means in his losthorizons web site. And no federal court has ever ruled that the federal income tax must be tied to an "activity" involving a "privilege," federal or otherwise. And every court that has been presented with such an argument has rejected it.

Still waiting on you, Harvester. You've been posting here for weeks, and you've come up with nothing.

[jg]

Do tell:
What is a "revenue-taxable activity" ? (Is it defined in the law? )

Oh yes. Mr. Zuniga includes them in his exhaustive list of "facts" concluding with:

"47. In the calendar year specified above, to the best of my knowledge I did not engage in any activity regulated under authority of Title 27 of the United States Code."

http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com/20 ... facts.html

And here's a concise summary of the meaning of “Income”:
http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.ht ... ngOfIncome

Neither of those links tell me what is "revenue-taxable activity".
Neither of those links shows a definition in the law of what it is.