The Lost Horizons Forum

A meeting place for the CtC-empowered.
It is currently Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:26 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The News, Sept. 16, 2019
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:57 pm 

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 80
The September 16, 2019 Lost Horizons Newsletter
...where real knowledge intersects with real Americans!


A Recent Win In Tax Court, And More Remedies For Bogus NODs
The ice continues to crack, and it won't last much longer if enough people jump on it all at once.

TWO MONTHS OR SO BACK I posted an article (see it here) discussing the invalidity-- indeed, criminal character-- of the occasionally-seen and particularly indefensible IRS ploy in which "frivolous return" penalties (FRPs) are asserted against mere correspondences in which reference copies of returns are included. By way of this ploy the agency attempts to intimidate an educated filer into doing what the IRS has no power to do-- change his or her return to something more convenient to the agency's revenue-maximizing mission.

A few weeks ago, on August 29, a US Tax Court tossed out six such particularly-bogus penalties in its ruling in Kestin v. C.I.R., 153 T.C. No. 2, based on exactly the reasoning offered in my article. (Make no mistake-- I don't think the judge is a newsletter reader! But the flaws in these bogus FRP assertions are so self-evident that even a Tax Court judge can't figure out a way to uphold them...)

So, a happy outcome on this utterly corrupt practice by the IRS. This ruling will be useful to anyone else having to put down invalid FRPs whether of the "non-return" variety or any other.

Even where an FRP is asserted simply in regard to an actual filing, this case and others sure to follow (and those that have gone before-- this is not the first) help establish the agency as prone to play fast and loose with the rules, to put it in the nicest possible way. The implication of overall bad-faith, arbitrary and capricious practices by the IRS can be added to the preamble material discussed here and help set the stage even more effectively for proper and respectful treatment in courts of the United States.



What "Red Flag" Laws Are Really All About
It's more the First Amendment being assaulted here than the Second.

THE PEN IS MIGHTIER than the sword. Really. And the enemies of liberty and the rule of law know it.

I had the pleasure of attending a meeting addressed by an opponent of so-called "red flag" laws last week. These are the laws-- now on the books in 17 states and looming in a number of others-- by which anyone can secretly accuse someone else of being a dangerous gun-owner which, if treated by a judge or magistrate in the way the average search warrant seems to be these days, will lead to a raid on the target's home and the seizure of his or her guns.

The idea is that imminent mass shooters can be detected beforehand by things they have said (on social media or wherever) and can and should be pre-emptively thwarted in their imagined nefarious plan (or their expected mental crack-up) by being disarmed beforehand.

Plainly, these "red flag" laws are a big camel's nose under the tent flap of widespread gun-seizure and prohibition. The reasoning used to justify seizures under these laws requires just the slightest extension to get to the proposition that some dangerous people won't reveal themselves in writings or speech and so everyone should be disarmed (except soldiers of the state, of course).

Give people a few years to grow accustomed to the "red flag" version and they'll have great difficulty seeing why the next step shouldn't be tolerated. The heat under the pot is turned up incrementally when one seeks to boil a frog.



An Old Post From Within The Belly Of The Beast
...found the other day while looking for something else...

DIGGING AROUND for a Mencken quote to use in the 'This And That' article further down on this page, I came across an article I had written for the newsletter back in 2011. That was during the two years I spent as a guest of the government, as explained here.

The article had been posted at that time (I had set things up so that Doreen could upload things I sent her as if to a blog), but then receded into the rather high-volume mix of material on this site. In my own re-reading, I am inclined to think the piece continues to merit attention (and sharing around, as well-- hint, hint...). Thus, I've added a link to the article on the site map for future reference, and here it is for your enjoyment today:



The "United States" Is NOT "The Sovereign"
...and United States officials have no inherent claim to "sovereign immunity".

TO BEGIN WITH, let's dispose of the notion that the "United States" is the sovereign. This is largely an academic point in practical terms, but clear thinking on the big picture relies on clear perception of each little thing of which the big picture is composed, and so...

SOVEREIGN a : A person, body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority.
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.

Does that sound to you like a description of the "United States"? If so, you haven't been paying attention in civics class... Leaving aside the more fundamental sovereignty of The People, what is vested with supreme authority in America is the United States Constitution, of which the "United States" (the federal government headquartered in Washington, DC) is just a wholly subordinate artifact.

That is, it is the US Constitution that is the supreme law of the land. That document is not the creation of the federal government-- it is the CREATOR of the federal government (or rather, the instrument by which the people, through their agents, the states, as represented by delegates chosen by the people of each state for the purpose, created the federal government).

Anything done by the federal government which the Constitution brought into existence only rises to the level of valid if it is in respectful conformance to Constitutional prescriptions and proscriptions, and is necessary and proper for accomplishing something Constitutionally permitted or required. This means that "United States" must do everything the Constitution says the "United States" is to do-- and can do nothing more than the Constitution expressly allows-- while not doing anything the Constitution says the "United States" is NOT to do. The shorthand for this is that all acts of the federal government must be "pursuant to the Constitution".

Indeed, every worker for that federal government, from the president on down, is required to swear an oath to preserve, protect (or support) and defend-- which functionally translates as "obey"-- the Constitution. This equates to the oath of allegiance and obedience taken in monarchies to the king or queen.

Those swearing such oaths are not the sovereigns. It is the one to whom (or to which) they are sworn that is the sovereign.



This And That
A few thoughts on 9/11 punditry, the Bolton departure, and fake news about Iran.

I'VE BEEN ASTONISHED, every September for the last 18, at the repeated expressions by otherwise sensible pundits which reflect a belief that the 9/11 events and their aftermath revolved around nothing but some kind of Muslin jihadi attack on America, as has been endlessly suggested by the state. Often enough, these same folks simultaneously criticize with apparent bewilderment the reactions by the state to those events, which they see as unwise, disproportionate, ill-targeted, counter-productive, unreasonably prolonged even in the face of public displeasure, and so on.

These folks seem incapable of grasping (or facing) the fact that when you see a sustained policy of the state, it is because the policy is accomplishing its objectives, notwithstanding any rhetoric seeming to suggest that the policy objectives are other than what is actually happening. For instance, when the FDR regime blockaded oil shipments to Japan beginning in 1940, and then steadily refused to meet with the Japanese ambassador to talk about that and other provocative US acts, this was not just a series of bullheaded boo-boos resulting in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

FDR wanted Japan to attack America. His actions were calculated to make that happen.



Other Voices: 'Unused Militaries'
An important observation by Fred Reed with an equally important afterword by Yours Truly.



And, of course, as always: Illuminating Anniversaries For This Week!

PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:17 pm 

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 23
Kestin v. C.I.R.

Why didn't they raise the 6020(b) issue? Nowhere in the case do they bring up 6020(b), why? That would seem to be the ace-in-the-hole, would it not?

Date of Assessment as "09/19/2016 Where's the wet-ink verified assessment signed under penalty of perjury?

Or put the ball in their court with 6703 to demand the burden of proof? How does 8278 bear the burden??

How does the return even remotely resemble the real ARG 44 position? Why wasn't that brought up?

Or since they raised the 3176C issue why not bring up the fact that they offer 30 days to withdraw the position, which is only offered in the case of a specified frivolous submission? The case states, Subsection (b) of section 6702 (not at issue here) imposes a penalty when a frivolous position is asserted in "specified frivolous submissions", meaning requests for CDP hearings and certain other specific applications (not involved here). Subsection (b)(3) of section 6702 provides a circumstance in which the "specified frivolous submission" penalty "shall not apply": If (b) is not the issue here why does it state that on 3176C?

Refer to: ... plaint.pdf

Or, to be a frivolous return, it must satisfy BOTH conditions: (a)1 AND (a)2.

Re the NFTL, produce the actual lien, not a 'notice of lien' - Can't be done. Show me the filing with the Sec of State.

Mrs. Kestin's original Form 1040X failed the Beard test because, although it "purports to be a return", it lacks an "honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law"; and it is therefore not a return. How so?

However, because that Form 1040X purports to be a return but has the defects set out in section 6702(a), it is subject to the section 6702(a) penalty. And what are the defects? Why isn't she asking them to prove their case instead of them just saying there are defects? What are the defects?

Not to mention 'person' who has a 'duty'...

Am I correct on the above? What am I missing or not in-line with?

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group