The Truth about Cracking the Code

[LPC]

I'm fairly new to the forum, but would anyone quarrel with the statement "The term douche-bag includes Harvester."

You can't be *that* new if you're already pandering to the Illuminati/moderators.

I actually feel a little silly for even posting on this thread because it almost seems too obvious that Harvester is just trolling.

And yet "some people" keep feeding the troll. (Sigh.)

Welcome to Quatloos, and keep posting the "almost too obvious." Some people need to be reminded.

[Famspear]

And yet "some people" keep feeding the troll. (Sigh.)

Mea culpa. And perhaps it is time for me to give Harvester a rest.

[Cathulhu]

And yet "some people" keep feeding the troll. (Sigh.)

Mea culpa. And perhaps it is time for me to give Harvester a rest.

Ditto; remember, the ignore button is your friend.

[Harvester]

Wow, there's so much here to respond to, where to begin . . .

If significant money or obligations were concerned, I'd consult a lawyer before I signed a contract. Not to do so is very foolish.

Well if that contract were incomprehensible, full of 'legalese' then yes. Somehow, I've managed to successfully reach what now passes for middle-age without ever requiring or hiring the services of an attorney. I consider that an accomplishment of sorts. Although to be entirely correct, I have purchased properties with mortgages in which the banks' attorney was present, so it could be said I was paying for one indirectly. And here we have another example of "self-determine." One of the factors in Should I sign the contract? was Should I trust the attorney? Since the bank stood to lose if the deal was bad, I trusted the attorney assuming we (lender/buyer) were essentially on the same side (*I've since learned the truth here; that the bank created the loan amount via thin air from my signature on the note).

The 'splcenter.org' cookies were real, apparently both Lorne & I saw them, but have stopped now (that I've called 'em out?). Quatloos.com main page also tried to place a cookie from 'dreamstime.com' This was several days ago.

LPC, I know it's hard to win this tax issue in court. And that's why I stay out of it. I'm a lawful non-taxpayer, no 'info returns' generated against me to speak of. I'm nowhere near court; I've received no correspondence from the IRS beyond a "we've missed you" questionnaire (YEAH I'LL BET YOU HAVE, REVENUE SCAMMERS!).

there's more but, I'm tired . . .

[.]

The 'splcenter.org' cookies were real

Of course they were. When you visit as many paytriot sites as you do, you're bound to pick one up.

As detestable as Dees and his organization may be, they target what they consider "hate" sites. White supremacists, Jooo-haters, etc. You know, the sorts of sites where you spend most of your time.

However, the fact that you're too ignorant to be able to identify the source of a cookie isn't surprising.

[webhick]

The 'splcenter.org' cookies were real, apparently both Lorne & I saw them, but have stopped now (that I've called 'em out?). Quatloos.com main page also tried to place a cookie from 'dreamstime.com' This was several days ago.

No. Quatloos never placed any such cookies. You sir, are a liar.

[lorne]

I think there's much truth in Cracking the Code, putting more pieces of this puzzle together. However near the end talks about filing amended returns going back 3 years, and also using Form 4852 to counter the W2 amounts. Both of those ideas seem fraught with risk, that your just asking for trouble there.

Harvester you appear to be successful, did you use those methods?

[Nikki]

You purchase a box with a picture of a remote control toy car on it. The box has a label which reads "Includes 2 AA batteries"

When you bring the box home and open it, what do you expect to find?

Harvester must have been astonished to find that the term 'AA batteries' includes 'D" cells

[Pottapaug1938]

I think there's much truth in Cracking the Code, putting more pieces of this puzzle together. However near the end talks about filing amended returns going back 3 years, and also using Form 4852 to counter the W2 amounts. Both of those ideas seem fraught with risk, that your just asking for trouble there.

Harvester you appear to be successful, did you use those methods?

Wouldn't it be better to ask if the author of CtC -- or anyone else, for that matter -- has been successful, IN THE END, having used CtC principles? Short-term tactical "victories" -- like those refund checks on LoserHorizons -- don't count.

[Pottapaug1938]

You purchase a box with a picture of a remote control toy car on it. The box has a label which reads "Includes 2 AA batteries"

When you bring the box home and open it, what do you expect to find?

Harvester must have been astonished to find that the term 'AA batteries' includes 'D" cells

What he has is the small box, inside the box containing the toy truck, which contains the two included batteries. Notice that it bears no legend as to what the truck is, who made it, and so on.

[Nikki]

I think there's much truth in Cracking the Code, putting more pieces of this puzzle together. However near the end talks about filing amended returns going back 3 years, and also using Form 4852 to counter the W2 amounts. Both of those ideas seem fraught with risk, that your just asking for trouble there.

Harvester you appear to be successful, did you use those methods?

1 - you are correct in that there's much truth in CtC. Unfortunately those truths end well before the stated conclusions, suggested procedures, and predicted results. There's that slight matter of the intervening incorrect logic, invalid interpretations, and deliberate ignoring (specifically NOT ignorance) the clear language of the law. Overlooking little things like "For the purpose of this section ... " and "The term <X> shall be interpreted to mean ..." allows anyone to achieve their pre-determined validation of tax evasion.

2 - Harvester appears to be nothing more than a troll who has only been successful (somewhat) in learning to cut-and-paste from various tax evasion sites. He has not yet demonstrated either a mastery of coherent thought or one single thing to back up any of his fanciful claims.

Lorne:

You are becoming interesting.

If we take you at face value that you are somehow involved in the accounting / bookkeeping / tax return preparation industry, then you are presenting a fascinating case study in how an under-educated person can fall under the spell of one of the snake-oil salesmen.

If, which is much more likely, you are a troll, you aren't very good at it.

[.]

Poor "lorne" is a bit of a joke as a troll.

He tried to construct some credibility as a legitimate CPA/bookkeeper/tax prep-type person in a previous thread with a story about a phantom, wayward client.

Amazingly, "lorne" would now have us believe that he's done a bit of reading at the behest of his phantom client and suddenly found "much truth" in CtC.

Go for it "lorne." Pete's cave is almost empty. Actually, whether they admit it or not, most of his former marks are running out of there like their hair was on fire. You can probably take it over with minimal effort.

[ashlynne39]

I think there's much truth in Cracking the Code, putting more pieces of this puzzle together. However near the end talks about filing amended returns going back 3 years, and also using Form 4852 to counter the W2 amounts. Both of those ideas seem fraught with risk, that your just asking for trouble there.

Harvester you appear to be successful, did you use those methods?

I'm sorry, what part of "Pete developed and used this method and is in prison because he is a tax cheat and his methods don't work" escapes you? There's no excuse for anyone new joining Pete's little tax cheat group, this suggests to me that you must have been involved for a while and in too deep to see reality.

[Harvester]

No Lorne, I did not use form 4852 as I'm not a W-2 employee. And for several reasons, no, I did not amend prior year returns; seemed like water under the bridge. But you may be right, that could well be why I have no "trouble." The IRS appears to identify and then 'adapt' to filers who've learned the truth.

I still believe Pete accurately describes the Income Tax scam better than anyone. Of course what you do with that knowledge is up to you. You may want to check out David Zuniga too:
http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com A successful 11-year non-taxpayer.

ALL THE BEST PATRIOTS, WE'RE GONNA WIN THIS ONE TOO!

[Joey Smith]

The IRS appears to identify and then 'adapt' to filers

Yep, that's why about 1/3rd of the posts over at LostHeads are from people who are complaining about their bank accounts being levied upon.

[ashlynne39]

No Lorne, I did not use form 4852 as I'm not a W-2 employee. And for several reasons, no, I did not amend prior year returns; seemed like water under the bridge. But you may be right, that could well be why I have no "trouble." The IRS appears to identify and then 'adapt' to filers who've learned the truth.

I still believe Pete accurately describes the Income Tax scam better than anyone. Of course what you do with that knowledge is up to you. You may want to check out David Zuniga too:
http://taxhonestyprimer.blogspot.com A successful 11-year non-taxpayer.

ALL THE BEST PATRIOTS, WE'RE GONNA WIN THIS ONE TOO!

Safe to assume you're referring to Petey's income tax scam? The one that landed him in prison? I'm not sure he really does do it best. Other tax protestors seem to have gotten a longer sentence. If Petey really wanted to take the prize he should have gone for the gold - maybe an armed stand-off or perhaps booby trapping his home. Frankly Petey seems to be a bit amateurish in his scamming style. He might consider working on it when he gets out. See if he can get a better, longer sentence next time and maybe take alot more of his supporters down with him.

[Gregg]

That armed standoff stuff may play in New Hampshire, but trying something like that in Detroit is a whole other thing, the cops are a little more jaded up that way, hell, Ed was only a moderately well armed old man by their standards.

[lorne]

thanks for info Harvey. I still say this is a strange forum, some of you act like I just insulted your mother. Just a seeker here.

Peace, Lorne

[Famspear]

.....I still say this is a strange forum, some of you act like I just insulted your mother. Just a seeker here.

Peace, Lorne

It's not a "strange forum." And no, nobody here is acting as you though you insulted anyone's mother. And no, it doesn't appear that you're a "seeker" here.

[The Operative]

thanks for info Harvey. I still say this is a strange forum, some of you act like I just insulted your mother. Just a seeker here.

Peace, Lorne

So, let's get this straight. In regards to tax law, you will blindly accept what a currently imprisoned former arcade manager says and the mostly incoherent ramblings of a person who has made numerous predictions, none of which have come true, over the word of lawyers and CPAs? That is not the action or attitude of a "seeker".