Your Bond is No Good

LaVidaRoja
Basileus Quatlooseus
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Your Bond is No Good

Postby LaVidaRoja » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:03 pm

135 T.C. No. 11
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LISA S. GOFF, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2965-09L. Filed August 34, 2010.
R may proceed with collection of tax liability and
civil penalties for filing frivolous tax returns.
1. Held: Submission of a “Bonded Promissory
Note” of P’s husband was not payment of liabilities and
penalties.
2. Held, further, P is subject to sanction under
sec. 6673(a)(1), I.R.C., for procedures instituted
primarily for delay, etc.
Lisa S. Goff, pro se.
Richard W. Kennedy, for respondent.
- 2 -
HALPERN, Judge: This case is before the Court to determine
whether respondent may proceed with the collection of
petitioner’s unpaid Federal income tax for 1996 through 2006 and
unpaid civil penalties for filing frivolous income tax returns
for 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004 (collectively, petitioner’s
liabilities or, simply, the liabilities). We review the
determinations under section 6330(d)(1).
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended and as applicable to this case, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure
unless otherwise indicated.
The case presents two questions:
1. Whether a “Bonded Promissory Note” in the face amount of
$5 million (the note) that petitioner submitted to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) constitutes payment of the liabilities; and
2. whether we should impose an additional penalty on
petitioner pursuant to section 6673 for instituting this
proceeding primarily for delay or advancing a position that is
frivolous or groundless.
- 3 -
1At the conclusion of the trial, the Court set a schedule
for opening and answering briefs and ordered the parties to file
such briefs. The Court directed petitioner’s attention to Rule
151, which addresses briefs, and, in particular, to Rule 151(e),
which addresses the form and content of briefs. We have accepted
from petitioner what appears to be her opening brief, although it
does not contain proposed findings of fact, as Rule 151(e)(3)
requires, or otherwise conform to the requirements of that Rule.
Petitioner filed no answering brief. Respondent filed an opening
brief with proposed findings of fact and otherwise conforming to
Rule 151(e). Apparently seeing no need to answer petitioner’s
brief, respondent declined to file an answering brief. Pursuant
to Rule 151(e)(3), each party, in its answering brief, must “set
forth any objections, together with the reasons therefor, to any
proposed findings of any other party”. Petitioner did not file
an answering brief and did not set forth objections to
respondent’s proposed findings of fact. Accordingly, we must
conclude that petitioner has conceded that respondent’s proposed
findings of fact are correct except to the extent that those
findings are clearly inconsistent with evidence in the record.
See, e.g., Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 108 n.4 (2002),
affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). Respondent, of course, is
not similarly disadvantaged because petitioner’s opening brief
contained no proposed findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
When she filed the petition, petitioner resided in Utah.
Respondent notified petitioner of his intent to collect
petitioner’s liabilities by levy, and, in response thereto,
petitioner requested a pre-levy hearing with Appeals under
section 6330.
During that hearing, petitioner argued that she had paid the
liabilities by means of the note, which she had sent to the IRS.
Respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals) team manager Sharon
Patterson (Ms. Patterson) rejected petitioner’s claim that the
- 4 -
liabilities had been paid, and the determinations, signed by Ms.
Patterson, followed.
Petitioner timely filed the petition, assigning error to the
determinations primarily on the ground that “Payment for all
liabilities alleged by IRS for LISA S GOFF, TIN * * * was
tendered by Harvey Douglas Goff, Jr., hereinafter, ‘Undersigned’
on or about January 17, 2008.” Petitioner added:
Contrary to IRS’ claim, Petitioner, at all relevant
times prior to the * * * [section 6330] hearing and
during the hearing itself, challenged the existence of
a tax liability in that, the Undersigned tendered
sufficient payment for the alleged liability and IRS
failed to post the funds to the proper account.
Petitioner also assigned error on the ground that “The
proposed levy, would trespass on a bona fide lien held by the
Undersigned and thereby cause irreparable injury to the
Undersigned.”
The “Undersigned” referred to is petitioner’s husband,
Harvey D. Goff, Jr. (Mr. Goff). Both he and petitioner signed a
document prepared by Mr. Goff, attached to the petition, which
set forth petitioner’s assignments of error and the facts on
which she relies. Among the facts on which she relies are the
following:
1. On or about March 20, 2007, the Undersigned
deposits a bond with the Secretary of the Treasury
upon which the Undersigned states his intention to
draw against the proceeds of said bond in
satisfaction of debts. The Undersigned, according
to the terms of the bond order, grants the
Secretary a thirty-day opportunity in which to
- 5 -
return said bond to the Undersigned or, in the
alternative accept the Undersigned’s bond and
terms.
2. Upon expiration of said 30-day opportunity, the
Undersigned receives no communication from the
Secretary, and said bond is not returned to the
Undersigned. Accordingly, the Secretary accepts
said bond pursuant to the terms of said bond.
3. On or about September 7, 2007, the Undersigned
deposits, with the Secretary of the Treasury, a
Private Discharging and Indemnity Bond No.
RA819570054US-HDG subordinate to the March 20,
2007 bond which is issued pursuant to the
Undersigned’s full faith and credit. The stated
purpose of said Private Discharging and Indemnity
Bond is to indemnify, among others, the TIN
assigned to Petitioner, the Petitioner, Internal
Revenue Service and all subdivisions, agents and
employees thereof. The terms of said Private
Discharging and Indemnity Bond state that the
Undersigned grants the Secretary the opportunity
to return said bond within thirty days of receipt.
4. Upon expiration of said 30-day opportunity, the
Undersigned receives no communication from the
Secretary, and said Private Discharging and
Indemnity Bond is not returned. Accordingly, the
Secretary accepts said Private Discharging and
Indemnity Bond pursuant to the terms of said bond.
5. At the Undersigned’s instruction, during December
2007, Petitioner requests a consolidating billing
from IRS that includes all amounts which IRS
alleges were owed by Petitioner.
6. On or about January 11, 2008, Petitioner receives
a letter identified as LTR 681C with reference
#0774035504 alleging a total amount due of
$36,354.16.
7. On or about January 17, 2008, the Undersigned
tenders payment for Petitioner’s account through
Notary Public Kevin P. Mahoney in the form of
Bonded Promissory Note No. HDG-1005-PN in the
amount of $5,000,000.00 using Certified Mail No.
7001 1140 0002 9580 3371.
- 6 -
8. Said promissory note is payable to Secretary of
the United States Treasury * * *
The note tendered in alleged payment of petitioner’s
liabilities contains in part the following:
BONDED PROMISSORY NOTE
Registered via Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Corporations and UCC File No. * * *
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL TRACKING NO. * * *
--- $5,000,000.00 ---
Five Million and 00/100 United States Dollars
To the Order of: Henry M Paulson, Jr. d/b/a
Secretary of the United States
Treasury,
P.S. Lane d/b/a Operations Mgr.,
ACS Remote Ops. 1, Internal Revenue
Service and Fiduciary Trustee
In the Amount of: Five Million and 00/100 United
States Dollars ($5,000,000.00)
For Credit to: Internal Revenue Service Account *
* * to the benefit of LISA STEPHENS
GOFF A/K/A LISA GOFF * * * SS No. *
* *
Routing Through: Private Discharging and Indemnity
(Securitization Bond No. RA819570054US-HDG to
Bond) Secretary of the Treasury Henry M.
Paulson, Jr. * * *
This negotiable instrument, tendered lawfully by
Harvey Douglas Goff Jr. (“Maker”) in good faith shall
evidence as a debt to the Payee pursuant to the
following terms:
1. This Note shall be posted in full dollar for
dollar pursuant to the above credit order and
presented to the co-payee, Secretary of the
Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr. by the
Fiduciary(ies) in the attached preaddressed
envelope by certified mail/RR (certificates
completed and supplied) or electronic transfer.
- 7 -
2. Upon receipt of this instrument, Payee shall
charge account * * * via Pass-Through Account H
DOUGLAS GOFF * * * for the purpose of terminating
any past, present, or future liabilities express
or implied attached or attributed to Account No. *
* * and/or Lisa Stephens Goff * * *
3. Payee shall ledger this Note for a period of
thirty (30) days commencing the start of business
on 16 January 2008 until close of business 14
February 2008 at an interest rate of seven percent
(7%) per annum;
4. Upon maturity, this Note shall be due and payable
in full with interest and any associated fees.
Payment shall be posted in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles against
Private Discharging and Indemnity Bond No.
RA819570054US-HDG (Tracking Number RA 819 570 054
US) held and secured by Henry M. Paulsen, Jr.,
Secretary of the United States Treasury.
16 January 2008 /s/ Harvey Douglas Goff, Jr.
Date Authorized Signature
At the bottom of the note, the names and addresses of five
individuals were listed, presumably to show the person who issued
the note (Mr. Goff), the persons who were to receive the note as
payment (Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, and
Linda E. Stiff, Acting Commissioner of the IRS), and those
considered to be fiduciaries (P.S. Lane, Operations Manager, IRS,
and Renee A. Mitchell, Director, Campus Compliance Operations,
IRS).
Along with the note, petitioner sent processing instructions
to the IRS on how the note was to be posted as payment of
petitioner’s liabilities. The note and processing instructions
purported to place a legal duty on the IRS to apply up to $5
- 8 -
million toward the liabilities. The IRS ignored the note and
processing instructions and did not on account thereof apply any
amount in payment of petitioner’s liabilities.
After filing the petition, petitioner attended a conference
with respondent’s counsel, who warned her that her position was
frivolous.
Our notice setting this case for trial informed petitioner
that, if the case could not be settled, then “the parties, before
trial, must agree in writing to all facts and all documents about
which there should be no disagreement.” Our accompanying
standing pretrial order required the parties to prepare and
submit pretrial memoranda, setting forth basic information about
the case.
Petitioner both refused to enter into a stipulation of facts
and failed to submit a pretrial memorandum.
As discussed supra note 1, at the conclusion of the trial,
we set a briefing schedule and directed the parties to submit
briefs. When petitioner did not submit an opening brief on
schedule, we extended the time for her to comply. In reply, we
received documents from Mr. Goff, which we filed as petitioner’s
opening brief. Those documents in no way comply with Rule
151(e), addressing the form and content of briefs. In part, one
of those documents states as follows:
Thank you for your offer for my DEBTOR, LISA S GOFF, to
file an opening brief by close of business April 28,
- 9 -
2010. Said offer is cast as a court order and a copy
of said order is enclosed.
I accept your offer for value in behalf [sic] of myself
and my debtor for sixty million four hundred thousand
and 00/100 dollars ($60,400,000.00) and bill you and
the court for my services in the matter.
A second document states:
It comes to my attention that the UNITED STATES TAX
COURT is a for-profit corporation and is listed with
Dunn & Bradstreet as such. * * *
* * * * * * *
Are you aware of and do you realize the liability you
personally incur in acting as an agent for the
incorporated UNITED STATES TAX COURT?
OPINION
I. Review of the Determinations
Section 6330(a) provides taxpayers with the opportunity to
request an administrative review of the Commissioner’s decision
to take administrative action to collect by levy any tax owing.
Appeals conducts that review, sec. 6330(b)(1), and, as stated, we
review respondent’s determinations under section 6330(d)(1). On
the facts before us, we review those determinations de novo.
Boyd v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127, 131 (2001); Landry v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001).
Respondent may proceed by levy to collect petitioner’s
liabilities. Simply put, neither the note nor anything in
connection with the note constitutes payment of petitioner’s
liabilities. The United States Code provides that “coins and
- 10 -
currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes
of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for
all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.” 31 U.S.C. sec. 5103
(2006). Section 6311 addresses alternative methods of payment
and authorizes the Secretary to receive for taxes any
commercially acceptable means that he deems appropriate as
prescribed by regulations. Sec. 6311(a), (d). No regulation
issued by the Secretary allows private bonds or notes such as the
note to be considered payment by commercially acceptable means.
Other types of payment are not acceptable; e.g., the Commissioner
has refused to accept real property in payment for tax
liabilities. Rev. Rul. 76-350, 1976-2 C.B. 396. Similarly, the
Commissioner is not obligated to accept an individual’s personal
property in satisfaction of her tax liabilities. E.g., Calafut
v. Commissioner, 277 F. Supp. 266, 267 (M.D. Pa. 1967).
At the conclusion of the trial, the Court asked petitioner
to provide the Court with any argument as to why the note
discharged her obligation to pay the liabilities. Petitioner
answered only that her husband had tendered the note and she had
not been advised by anyone of any defect in the note, nor had
anyone returned it. Petitioner’s brief adds nothing to that
answer. Petitioner did not address at trial or on brief any
other error that she had assigned to the determinations,
including her claim that the proposed levy would trespass on a
- 11 -
bona fide lien her husband held. We therefore consider that she
has abandoned those assignments of error. See Mendes v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 312-313 (2003) (“If an argument is
not pursued on brief, we may consider that it has been
abandoned.”). We see no reason not to sustain the
determinations, and we shall sustain them.
II. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty
Under section 6673(a)(1), this Court may require a taxpayer
to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 if (1) the taxpayer has
instituted or maintained a proceeding primarily for delay, or (2)
the taxpayer’s position is “frivolous or groundless”. A
taxpayer’s position is frivolous if it is contrary to established
law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change
in the law. E.g., Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
523, 544 (2000). There is no support for petitioner’s claim that
the note discharged her obligation to pay the liabilities, and
she has made no argument beyond her claim that the Government did
not return the note or point out its defects. Moreover, she
refused to enter into a stipulation of facts and disobeyed our
order to submit a pretrial memorandum. She did not comply with
the briefing schedule we set. When, in response to our order
extending her time to file a brief, we received documents from
her husband, they contained a ridiculous demand for money and a
nonsensical claim that the Court is a for-profit corporation.
- 12 -
Petitioner’s principal position in this case is so weak as to be
groundless, and her argument in support of that position is
frivolous. Indeed, we can see no reason for this case other than
delaying respondent’s collection of tax liabilities and penalties
for the 11 years in issue. Respondent’s counsel warned
petitioner that her position was frivolous. Petitioner has
wasted both the Court’s and respondent’s limited resources and
deserves a significant penalty. We shall, therefore, require
petitioner to pay a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) of $15,000.
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4344
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Gregg » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:53 pm

They just can't seem to get the right magic words to unlock that Treasury Account we set up for everyone at birth...... :brickwall:
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

User avatar
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Joey Smith » Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:44 am

Hey, I thought that David Merrill said that this would work??????????
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby fortinbras » Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:14 am

Is this for real?
The decision is dated August 34, 2010.


----
PS: Found the official typescript, and the original says August 34!
Should read August 24.
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/Goff.TC.WPD.pdf

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby LPC » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:09 am

135 T.C. No. 11
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LISA S. GOFF, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2965-09L. Filed August 34, 2010.[sic]

This is a reviewed opinion, meaning that it is an opinion of the entire Tax Court, and not an individual judge. It is of much greater weight than a "memorandum" opinion, which is an opinion of a single judge.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court asked petitioner to provide the Court with any argument as to why the note discharged her obligation to pay the liabilities. Petitioner
answered only that her husband had tendered the note and she had not been advised by anyone of any defect in the note, nor had anyone returned it. Petitioner’s brief adds nothing to that answer. Petitioner did not address at trial or on brief any other error that she had assigned to the determinations, including her claim that the proposed levy would trespass on a bona fide lien her husband held. We therefore consider that she has abandoned those assignments of error.

This is chickensh*t. The pleadings by the taxpayer are pure gibberish, and instead of labeling them as gibberish, the Tax Court relies on a procedural issue, ruling that the taxpayer failed to properly plead/argue/brief the issue, and that it is deemed to be "abondoned."

This only encourages future delusions.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

LaVidaRoja
Basileus Quatlooseus
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby LaVidaRoja » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:34 am

I had thought that by ruling on it as a procedural matter, the Court had foreclosed similar arguements. I stand corrected.
What I found interesting was when I researched the plaintif and her husband's name in the Tax Court filings. NOTHING. Since Utah is not a community property state, I suspect that she had W-2 earnings and he was/is self-employed. Which might well mean that his tax case will NOT be in Tax Court, and will not be a civil matter.
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby fortinbras » Sat May 14, 2011 6:13 pm

It turns out that her husband (?), Harvey Douglas Goff, who prepared the funny money that the govt and court rejected, is now on the hotplate for (among other things) pretending to be a diplomat, threatening police and judges, faking legal process, numerous bogus liens, etc.
http://saltlakecity.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/slc051311.htm

Assessor
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Assessor » Sat May 14, 2011 7:23 pm

The amount of money in those secret Treasury accounts is going up dramatically. Elvick set the amount at $603k. Now we find out that it's over $60 million. As long we're just making numbers up, why not go bigger?

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3528
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Sat May 14, 2011 8:08 pm

I suspect by now, Van Pelt has chalked this one up to operator error. :roll:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4344
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Gregg » Sat May 14, 2011 11:25 pm

Assessor wrote:The amount of money in those secret Treasury accounts is going up dramatically. Elvick set the amount at $603k. Now we find out that it's over $60 million. As long we're just making numbers up, why not go bigger?


That was just a start, in the DOJ release they tell of him claiming the various city, county and state et al owe him $53 trillion, which, if true, would jeopardize the NESARA payouts.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2647
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Sun May 15, 2011 10:53 am

LPC wrote:....This is chickensh*t. The pleadings by the taxpayer are pure gibberish, and instead of labeling them as gibberish, the Tax Court relies on a procedural issue, ruling that the taxpayer failed to properly plead/argue/brief the issue, and that it is deemed to be "abondoned."

This only encourages future delusions.
I disagree. The gibberish wasn't filed properly or timely so the court can only rule on the basis of the failure to file. If the gibberish was filed in a timely manner and addressed the required points (even in gibberish), then the court could rule against the gibberish as being wrong.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10621
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby notorial dissent » Sun May 15, 2011 11:45 am

I think they should have split the difference and tossed it on the basis that it was meaningless gibberish, and then nailed the coffin lid down by saying finally that even were it not gibberish it was filed improperly or what ever terms they used, and gotten it from both directions, and thus put it down for both reasons and denied them the "they didn't rule on the issues excuse" .
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1674
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:06 am

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby . » Sun May 15, 2011 1:33 pm

LPC wrote:This is chickensh*t. The pleadings by the taxpayer are pure gibberish, and instead of labeling them as gibberish, the Tax Court relies on a procedural issue, ruling that the taxpayer failed to properly plead/argue/brief the issue, and that it is deemed to be "abandoned."


I agree with Dan.

No doubt it's wonderful to rule based only on the legal niceties while ignoring the gibberish elephant in the room, but these TC judges don't seem to get the fact that there are 10,000 morons out there who can't wait to inundate them with more equally delusional gibberish.

Whack 'em. Hard. It's mule and 2x4 time. $25K per. Nothing less has any chance of working. Not that any of them will ever pay it, but 95% of the idiots might be discouraged.

LPC wrote:This only encourages future delusions.


You and I obviously agree that government action has an effect on behavior. Let's file this away for the next time that a discussion of marginal tax rates comes up.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.

Nikki

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Nikki » Sun May 15, 2011 3:25 pm

Unfortunately, one of the elements of the rule of law is the jurisdiction of the court.

If a time certain is statutorily imposed (but missed), then the court's jurisdiction extends only far enough to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

If the deadline is imposed by a general or local rule of the court, the court has some latitude in overlooking un timely filing. However, the court must be convinced -- by a timely, well-argued finding with sufficient basis in law or precedent -- to overlook the rule.

All we can hope for is that, at some time in the near future, one of these sovereignoramuses complies with every procedural rule all the way up to the Supreme Court AND that every judge along the way is willing to have his clerks waste hours composing a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to each of the sovereign gibberish points.

Even then, the next maroon in line will argue that that, although the right color crayon was used, it was scrawled at a diagonal of 45 degrees instead of 60 degrees thereby nullifying it.

Rebuttals, sanctions, jail time, divorce, etc will not stop them. They are jugheadnauts.

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3528
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Sun May 15, 2011 3:26 pm

. wrote: ...

Whack 'em. Hard. It's mule and 2x4 time. $25K per. Nothing less has any chance of working. Not that any of them will ever pay it, but 95% of the idiots might be discouraged.

LPC wrote:This only encourages future delusions.


You and I obviously agree that government action has an effect on behavior. Let's file this away for the next time that a discussion of marginal tax rates comes up.


What's the difference between the $15K whack and $60 Trillion?

Until these *ssclowns start spending time in prison for submitting fraudulent documents, i.e., bogus "Bonded Promissory Notes" or things like "Bills of Exchange," a financial penalty in such cases is meaningless.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby LPC » Sun May 15, 2011 9:25 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
. wrote: ...

Whack 'em. Hard. It's mule and 2x4 time. $25K per. Nothing less has any chance of working. Not that any of them will ever pay it, but 95% of the idiots might be discouraged.

LPC wrote:This only encourages future delusions.


You and I obviously agree that government action has an effect on behavior. Let's file this away for the next time that a discussion of marginal tax rates comes up.


What's the difference between the $15K whack and $60 Trillion?

Until these *ssclowns start spending time in prison for submitting fraudulent documents, i.e., bogus "Bonded Promissory Notes" or things like "Bills of Exchange," a financial penalty in such cases is meaningless.

I want to point out that my comment above was *not* made in response to the comment about sanctions.

But I agree that monetary sanctions are useless against morons with tax debts.

And criminal prosecution is expensive and time-consuming.

What about civil contempt? I've seen judges threaten litigants with civil contempt for continuing to advance arguments that the judge had already ruled on and didn't want to hear any more about. Why couldn't Tax Court judges do the same thing?

The judge explains to the moron du jour that he's not just wrong about the law, but that what he's arguing is absurd, and tells him that if he doesn't concede the issue and withdraw his petition, he'll be held in contempt. As soon as his sputters something about "his rights," the judge tells the bailiff to handcuff him and take him away and not to let him out until he agrees to withdraw his gibberish.

A few hours (or days) in jail might smarten them up.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

David Merrill

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby David Merrill » Sun May 29, 2011 11:46 am

Joey Smith wrote:Hey, I thought that David Merrill said that this would work??????????


No. I have told you that when somebody tries to hypothecate on the registry themselves, they can get into trouble.

Gregg wrote:They just can't seem to get the right magic words to unlock that Treasury Account we set up for everyone at birth...... :brickwall:


We spent that account getting out of the Great Depression.

Image

5. At the Undersigned’s instruction, during December 2007, Petitioner requests a consolidating billing from IRS that includes all amounts which IRS alleges were owed by Petitioner.

6. On or about January 11, 2008, Petitioner receives a letter identified as LTR 681C with reference #0774035504 alleging a total amount due of $36,354.16.

7. On or about January 17, 2008, the Undersigned tenders payment for Petitioner’s account through Notary Public Kevin P. Mahoney in the form of Bonded Promissory Note No. HDG-1005-PN in the amount of $5,000,000.00 using Certified Mail No. 7001 1140 0002 9580 3371.


According to my calculation, somebody tried to hypothecate $4,963,645.84 in change.

One can however reverse the hypothecation that the Fed (Treasury) does on your credit, based in the registries (cars, homes and yes, your birth registry - SDR's [Special Drawing Rights - now quickly BRICS; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa]).

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3385 ... redit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4481/l ... redit2.jpg

This works great so long as you do not get greedy. I was getting a lot of parking tickets because my car had no plates. I refused to pay rent on property held in trust for my use. So when I tried to set up an account for $15K for a lot of future tickets, in escrow so to speak, the Prosecutor (from a vacant office by the way) insisted that was theft; but could only charge me with Forgery because the POMC's look a lot like a typical banker's check for guess what? - Private credit FRNs legal tender. They never charged me with theft:

This is chickensh*t. The pleadings by the taxpayer are pure gibberish, and instead of labeling them as gibberish, the Tax Court relies on a procedural issue, ruling that the taxpayer failed to properly plead/argue/brief the issue, and that it is deemed to be "abondoned."

This only encourages future delusions.


No. Your denial of the facts is delusional. You understand that the state registers mortgages, motor vehicles and birth certificates all the time but you will not allow what is in front of you to be seen and understood. The trouble begins when somebody tries to reverse the hypothecation in their private favor.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby David Merrill » Sun May 29, 2011 11:54 am

For more about POMC's click here.

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby fortinbras » Sun May 29, 2011 3:33 pm

from his linked message:
David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:....could only charge me with Forgery because the POMC's look a lot like a typical banker's check for guess what? - Private credit FRNs legal tender. They never charged me with theft.


Really not necessary to charge him with theft if (1) the forgery charge covers the same ground and (2) he didn't get the money. By the way, DVP's claim that he was charged with forgery ONLY because his POMC was in the general configuration of a bank check is bogus; POMCs have been held to be fraudulent and worthless no matter what their size or shape.

David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:By the by; the morning after I filed that Return of Bill of Indictment (finding of facts) on the prosecutor, he cleaned out his office. The newpaper wondered why he was leaving office early but he would make no comment.


That county prosecutor, it turned out, was promoted to State Attorney-General. How I wish that DVP would "ruin" me the same way!

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4929
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Your Bond is No Good

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sun May 29, 2011 4:32 pm

Go back to sleep, David. You're still oh-for-everything; and we didn't miss your foolishmess while you were away.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest