[AndyK]

Not A Person wrote on Sep 11 2006, 11:28 PM:

Sonik Speed wrote on Sep 15 2005, 05:18 PM:

Using the UCC (with respect to the topic of taxation) is a terrible way of approaching. Furthermore, using the “strawman” or “Redemption Process” or whatever derivative of it, is a worthless and non-meritorous action.

I would stay away from it.

Sonik Speed

[post=”1747″][/post]

Good advice for their Courts where the Becraft types work <_< — but there is commercial remedy available against the taxing authorities. try admininistrative remedy. if you need guidance about this, email me privately. 🙂

[post=”3042″][/post]

I hope you're not suggesting filing liens against the parties involved. That leads nowhere except to jail on criminal charges.

[AndyK]

Anti-Predator wrote on Sep 13 2006, 10:25 AM:

Sonik –  you would be a lot happier guy, if you came to the realization that not everyone needs to think as you do and stopped the verbal attacks because of it.  Everyone has different paradigms of thought.  Your frustration appears to have manifested into a negative essence.  Basically, I do not think you mean anyone harm and ill will, so treat others as you wish to be treated and I think you will get more favorable responses and less anxiety.

peace.

[post=”3053″][/post]

So, you've been on board for a week, made a couple of posts and now you're the resident expert on everyone?

Chill out for a while and get to know the participants before you step into the deep water.

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 28 2006, 11:06 PM:

Quote:

“. . . conform the lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts developed in [the] Uniform Commercial Code.”

Now this is prima facie evidence I have here – which is certainly open to rebuttal. Is there a law or case law that says: Federal tax liens are superior to any other lien (with or without) a security interest?

An Open Minded,

Sonik Speed

[post=”2681″][/post]

This is NOT a rebuttal, just a comment.

There is a huge difference between (a) conforming to a concept and (:cool: conforming to and adopting the specific language.

If Congress had intended for the UCC to apply to the IRS, they would have enacted specific language to do so.

As to the superiority of liens: In general, the recordation date determines the superiority of liens when it comes to paying them off via bankruptcy or forced sale of assets. For example, If someone owns a property with two mortgages, unpaid local taxes for which a lien was established, and THEN has a federal tax lien filed; the Feds get their money only after the others have been paid.

[AndyK]

lambskin wrote on Apr 22 2006, 12:10 AM:

Hey All,

Just a reminder, the DOJ can't lawfully prosecute a case for the IRS (or anyone else for that matter) any more than the IRS can lawfully ask them to do so.

G & P,

AC

[post=”2662″][/post]

Interesting theory. Does it have any basis in verifiable fact? I'd love to discuss it once you provide some support.

[AndyK]

lchesson wrote on Apr 19 2006, 08:09 AM:

AndyK wrote:

“It's not worth my time to expend any more effort here. I'm sure my supervisors won't mind if I concentrate on other sites where the participants don't all have blinders on.”

You are allowed to use whatever resources you can manage.  Your supervisors are summoned to appear.  You clearly need some help.

[post=”2645″][/post]

ROFLMAO

[AndyK]

Civil N0.05-0921L

[AndyK]

Silence?

Cowardly retreat?

This from someone who refuses to accept plain English Supreme Court decisions?

Sorry, Andy don't play that crap.

Call me a loser, quitter, whatever you wish, but it won't change the facts: you are making the rules up as you go and refusing to accept anything that threatens your world view.

Let's get back together after you have your day in court.

Let's see how your legal arguments stand up there, in a forum outside your control.

It's not worth my time to expend any more effort here. I'm sure my supervisors won't mind if I concentrate on other sites where the participants don't all have blinders on.

PS Sonik, before you start spouting legal terms such as “void for vagueness”, you really should do some research as to the results associated with people who maintain the same belief. I'll give you a hint: the number of times they have succeeded in their quests is not a positive number.

No matter how much someone “rebuts” IRS documents on the Internet, there's only one forum where it counts. Let's take score after that happens.

I do not intend to lose any sleep over your opinion of me, my job, or my agency.

I just sincerely hope we never have to meet in a professional capacity because, well, do the initials CI ring any bells?

Adios.

[AndyK]

Well, I guess I'm banned from this topic.

I cited Law and Supreme Court rulings which support “includes” as a term of enlargement of the common language meaning.

Since you refuse to accept this, there's no point in going on.

As I said earlier, you are setting the ground rules, defining what is/isn't acceptable, and acting as judge and jury.

Under those terms, there is no way to contradict your conclusions.

Since law and specific Supreme Court cases don't matter in your deliberations, you have just established a kangaroo court.

Andy

[AndyK]

FIRST RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

#1 ADMIT excepting the correct, unannotated wording of the statute:

Quote:

26USC7701 (a)(26) Trade or business

The term ''trade or business'' includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

#2 DENY

First:

Quote:

26USC7701( c ) Includes and including

The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

Second:

The purpose of providing a statutory definition is to SPECIFY a word as to its interpretation in the relevant portion of the statute. Unless a statutory definition specifically replaces the common meaning of a word, [as in “The term ''delicious'' means the fruit of tree of genus Pyrus Malus.”] the common meaning is assumed in statutory interpretation.

Quote:

[T]he words of statutes–including revenue acts–should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday senses.

Crane v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 331 U.S. 1, 6 (1947), Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 571 (1966).

Quote:

In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the 'ordinary, everyday senses' of the words.

Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1993).

Quote:

Common understanding and experience are the touchstones for the interpretation of the revenue laws.

Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 118 (1940).

Quote:

The legislature must be presumed to use words in their known and ordinary signification.

Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 248 U.S. 552, 560 (1932), quoting Levy's Lessee v. M'Cartee, 6 Pet. 102, 110.

Thus, the term ?trade or business?, as used throughout 26USC, is interpreted to mean the common understanding of the phrase PLUS performance of the functions of a public office.

With respect to #3 ? DENY

Legal dictionaries are reference material, but do not have precedence over statute or precedential cases as a basis for construction and interpretation of law.

Given that I am challenging, with appropriate citations, the fundamental statement of the ?Questions/Admissions?, is it appropriate to proceed without resolving these disagreements?

[AndyK]

lchesson wrote on Apr 15 2006, 04:28 PM:

The witness(IRS)

The witness is not the IRS.  It's an employee of the company that issued the 1099s or the W-2s.

probably did not actually observed those payments, and would not be the most reliable sources of information.

The witness is someone from the department that issues the documents — either the person who actually does the work or a supervisor who controls the operation.

This is consistent with my statement that they do NOT have first hand knowledge of whether or not Hendrickson received 'wages'. 

Hendrickson's 'wages' allegation is for the court to determine.

They witnessed neither the payment itself, nor can testify about the nature of the payment.

They witnessed the payment (in that their office issued the payment and the paperwork) and can testify as to the nature of the payment and the reason they made it.

[post=”2606″][/post]

Are you saying that an employee of a company's payroll department, who prints the paychecks and the W-2 forms, and can provide the cancelled paychecks is not a competent witness to testify that the payments were made and that the forms were issued?

[AndyK]

lchesson wrote on Apr 15 2006, 09:32 AM:

Me:

The IRS is now trying to act as if they have first hand knowledge of whether or not Hendrickson received 'wages'.? I'll bet a dollar to a donut that they don't.

AndyK:

You owe me a donut.? The IRS has copies of forms W-2 and 1099, submitted by the 3rd parties under oath, attesting to the payments to the Hendricksons.

Under rule 602, please explain how the IRS can testify that these 3rd party documents are factual.

[post=”2603″][/post]

If the 3rd party reports are challenged, the IRS will bring the person who prepared them into court.

That person will testify, under oath, that the documents were prepared in the normal course of business and accurately reflect the records of the company. That person will produce cancelled checks or copies of EFT records supporting the payments.

It will then be up to the jury (or judge if it is not a jury trial) to determine which statements are more credible: the defendant or the 3rd party.

You still owe me a donut.

[AndyK]

On that basis, I will put together a reply.

It will take longer than a week to assemble all the relevant information, but it is forthcoming.

[AndyK]

Mr. Author #2:

I decline your offer or challenge or threat or whatever you choose to call it.

I'm not going to get into an argument over the meaning of “includes”, over the appropriateness of any legal dictionary as a valid source of statutory or case law, the relevance of ?861 to an American citizen, or the definition of of a citizen versus a resident versus an alien.

I refuse to do this because the cards are totally stacked against me or anyone else who answers the questions in any manner of which you do not approve.

I disagree with your conclusions regarding the scope and applicability of the income tax.

If that is sufficient grounds to banish me from your forum, so be it.

It's hard to understand how posting links to documents published by others or stating my opinion and posting facts supporting my opinion constitutes “abuse of this forum.” or “trying to scare the readers away from the use of corrected information returns.” I have not had the opportunity to pull together the relevant instructions and laws regrding Substitutes for Forms W-2, but I fully intended to do so.

Also, you are mistaken about the oath of office. I believe you were once in the military and took a similar oath. If you recall, it makes no mention, whatsoever, of “support and defend the sovereign, which is We The People”. The oath is to defend the Constitution and faithfully discharge my office.

Finally, it is absolutely obvious that disagreeing with you is an unwinnable situation because you have already made up your mind as to the only correct answers and support any disagreement or citation of facts contradicting you with

Quote:

The fact of the matter is, that the reason the IRS gets away with the violation of the CONstitution, enacted law, and compels people to associate with a corrupted government (in violation of the First Amendment) and using fraudulent information returns filed by ignorant people who are too stupid to even know they are violating the law against innocent Americans is because of silence and omission, a failure to recognize the limits of the law on their authority, and total lack of accountability to the public, who they are supposed to be serving. I allege that you and your employer look the other way with the blessings of a corrupted judiciary because the plunder is flowing into your checking account and bloated federal retirement.

Author #2, do you consider it a fair, unbiased mock trial when you write the court rules, when you collect the only admissable statutes to support arguments, when you specify the meaning of words, and you also act as prosecutor, judge, and jury?

The ball's back to you. You can continue to leave the forum open and intellectually honest or not.

[AndyK]

lchesson wrote on Apr 14 2006, 01:51 PM:

AndyK wrote on Apr 14 2006, 07:36 AM:

The IRS and DOJ are lying in their complaints and the complaints are full of presumption.

YOUR opinion.? Any facts to back it up?

# 1 – Para 7 of the complaint states that Hendrickson asserts that payment of federal taxes is voluntary.  False.

# 2 – Para 8 states that Hendrickson reported no taxable income for 02 and 03.  Again false.

# 3 – Para 9 states that Hendrickson assert that wages are not income.  Wrong.

# 4 – Para 9 includes a plethora of lower and tax court cases as a claim of established precedence.  Wrong again.

Just to name a few.  Several other paragraphs go about describing how Hendrickson made corrections to 3rd part info returns…WHICH IS NOT FRAUDULENT. 

There weren't any corrections made to 3rd-party forms.  Hendrickson submitted forms 4852 — “Substitute for …” claiming that he received no wages.

The IRS is now trying to act as if they have first hand knowledge of whether or not Hendrickson received 'wages'.  I'll bet a dollar to a donut that they don't.

You owe me a donut.  The IRS has copies of forms W-2 and 1099, submitted by the 3rd parties under oath, attesting to the payments to the Hendricksons.

These refund recovery suits are only the beginning.  Wait for the other shoe.

[post=”2588″][/post]

Even if he has to pay it all back does NOT establish criminal activity. What is the other shoe, AndyK? Are you considering repentance?

[post=”2591″][/post]

The question will come up in court as to who to believe: the disinterested 3rd parties who made the reports on the 1099s and W-2s or the Hendericksons. Given Hendrickson's criminal record and history of tax evasion, he will ahve to go a long way to convince the court that he was unable to obtain correct forms, as he stated on his signed Forms 4852.

“False.”, “False again.”, “Wrong.”, and “Wrong again.” aren't either facts or refutations. They're just YOUR opinion.

Either post some specific facts, or just sit back and enjoy the show.

As to the “other shoe”, I fully expect a large number of criminal prosecutions of PH's disciples. Filing fraudulent Forms 4852, signed under penalties of perjury, is a crime. Fraudulent underpayment of taxes is a crime. Obtaining refunds under fraudulent pretenses is a crime.

Check your facts before you make unfounded accusations.

[AndyK]

Bing wrote on Apr 14 2006, 08:43 AM:

The IRS wants the money back.

However, if the IRS is lawfully entitled to any money, than that would mean that the persons who filed the 4852 Forms and requested their $$$ be returned to them, committed perjury. Amazingly, though, the IRS and DOJ are not prosecuting anyone for perjury, mail fraud, etc.

Why?

Because the door is still open for criminal prosecution.? These people are being given a lot of slack.? In MY OPINION: too much

No doubt that they DO NOT want to shed even more light on the illegality of the IRS's methods and the effectiveness of the CTC filing approach. THe IRS is trying to plug the Dam but, alas, that puppy has already burst. Ahahahahaha.

The IRS and DOJ are lying in their complaints and the complaints are full of presumption.

YOUR opinion.? Any facts to back it up?

A nonresident alien's remuneration that is not effectively connected with a trade or business, is excluded from “wages” and is not subject to withholding. Period. Andy, you agree with that statement, right?? Sure you do.

You are entitled to your interpretation of the law.

Man, I am sure glad I have not filed an income tax return in many years, so I don't have to deal with the liars and theives that work at the IRS.

Bing

A Happy Man who lawfully pays no income taxes

[post=”2585″][/post]

These refund recovery suits are only the beginning. Wait for the other shoe.