Hendrickson's Reply Brief

[Nikki]

Weren't all those points addressed and disposed of by the District Court?

That was the assumption on which I based my flyswatter response by the Appellate Court.

[.]

bullshit masquerading as sophistry

Very nice turn of phrase.

Good that you actual lawyer guys have the tenacity to actually slog all the way through the stultifying baloney.

Perhaps reading junk like this is a candidate for Dirty Jobs on the Discovery channel.

[ASITStands]

I don't think that the Revenue Act of 1862 was repealed. I think it expired according to its terms. (I.e., it was enacted with a limited term, much like much of the EGTRRA of 2001 will expire on 12/31/2010.)

But I find confusing is Hendrickson's claim that section 93 limits the jurisdiction of the court, when section 93 says nothing about jurisdiction.

I know it's twisted, but let me see if I can show how Hendrickson believes section 93 limits jurisdiction.

Hendrickson appears to be saying, "Since I filed the return under penalties of perjury, and since my sworn testimony can't be challenged, and since section 93 of the Act of 1862 says my filed return is to be received as the basis of making the determination of a liability, then, since the government cannot make the determination of liability but must receive my testimony, they have no jurisdiction to bring a suit against me."

I said it was twisted, but I believe this is how he twists his argument to say they have no jurisdiction.

The suggestion the Act of 1862 simply expired is interesting. I'll have to do a little research on that angle. I had thought it was simply reenacted as the next revenue act.

[rachel]

I'm surprised LPC that a backwards assed country girl, who cannot spell right, see's you as nothing more than an amature at law?
Your number 5 is totally wrong.

5. Section 3401(c) does not exclude from "wages" the compensation paid to common law employees in the private sector.

(It seems from this far fetched qoute of yours that you yourself are either (A.) a little fan of Pete Hendricksons or (B.) dont actually know what you think you know.)
I think you are (C.) BOTH (A.) and (B.)!

They are not "common-law employee's". The code uses the common-law rules to determine employee-employer relationship to each other for proper deductions and withholdings of each.
Nothing says they are common-law employees!
Why do they actually make it clear they are injecting and applying the common-law rules in this one little lone statute LPC?

If they were common-law employee's would mean they are in the common-law jurisdiction. Therefore they wouldnt be subject to the federal jurisdiction found in 26CFR1.1-1(a), (b) and (c) now would they?
PA...LEASE!

[Nikki]

If Rachel bothered to do anything other than troll the forum, attempting to pounce on what she perceives as errors, she would have realized that the phrase "the compensation paid to common law employees in the private sector" and its exclusion from wages is not something which Dan was saying but, instead, a specific reference to one of Hendrickson's primary arguments for his exemption from taxation and that Dan was surmising how the Appeals court would address it.

However, she can't take the time to either check her facts, read Pete's court filing, or even attempt to understand the post which she's criticizing because she's too intent on demonstrating her intelligence and insight to all the know-nothing low lifes who inhabit Quatloosia.

If she weren't so nasty, she would be an excellent replacement for the departed Senior Jester of Quatloosia -- SFBFKADMVP.

[LPC]

The suggestion the Act of 1862 simply expired is interesting. I'll have to do a little research on that angle.

I overstated the case, I think.

The income tax was expressly limited to the years 1863 to 1866. See section 92 of the act.

Section 93, on which Hendrickson relies, refers repeatedly to "this act" and "aforesaid" and other similar cross-references, so that it is clear that section 93 applies by its terms only to the taxes imposed by the act of 1862.

And Hendrickson's use of elipses is creative. Section 93 actually reads in its entirety as follows (with Hendrickson's "quotation" in red):

Sec. 93. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all persons of lawful age, and all guardians and trustees, whether such trustees are so by virtue of their office as executors, administrators, or other fiduciary capacity, to make return in the list or schedule, as provided in this act, to the proper officer of internal revenue, of the amount of his or her income, or the income of such minors or persons as may be held in trust as aforesaid, according to the requirements hereinbefore stated, and in case of neglect or refusal to make such return, the assessor or assistant assessor shall assess the amount of his or her income, and proceed thereafter to collect the duty thereon in the same manner as is provided for in other cases of neglect and refusal to furnish lists or schedules in the general provisions of this act, where not otherwise incompatible, and the assistant assessor may increase the amount of the list or return of any party making such return, if he shall be satisfied that the same is understated: Provided, That any party, in his or her own behalf, or as guardian or trustee, as aforesaid, shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that he or she was not possessed of an income of six hundred dollars, liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this act, or that he or she has been assessed elsewhere and the same year for an income duty, under authority of the United States, and shall thereupon be exempt from an income duty; or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid, he or she may be permitted to declare, as aforesaid, the amount of his or her annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, as aforesaid, and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected.

Hendrickson has combined two different provisions, and has left out a condition. The provision that has the magic words "shall be received" begins "if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid...." Which means that the provision upon which Hendrickson relies does not apply unless his tax return was increased by an "assistant assessor" in the manner prescribed by the revenue act of 1862. Which I doubt happened.

[rachel]

If Rachel bothered to do anything other than troll the forum, attempting to pounce on what she perceives as errors, she would have realized that the phrase "the compensation paid to common law employees in the private sector" and its exclusion from wages is not something which Dan was saying but, instead, a specific reference to one of Hendrickson's primary arguments for his exemption from taxation and that Dan was surmising how the Appeals court would address it.

However, she can't take the time to either check her facts, read Pete's court filing, or even attempt to understand the post which she's criticizing because she's too intent on demonstrating her intelligence and insight to all the know-nothing low lifes who inhabit Quatloosia.

If she weren't so nasty, she would be an excellent replacement for the departed Senior Jester of Quatloosia -- SFBFKADMVP.

Like I said Nikki!
Number 5 tells a story that Dan is either (1.) a fan of Petes for beleiving that everyone is a common-law employee or (2.) doesnt understand what he thinks he understands.

[Nikki]

Woooooosh

[LPC]

The code uses the common-law rules to determine employee-employer relationship to each other for proper deductions and withholdings of each.
Nothing says they are common-law employees!

Just curious: What is the difference between an "individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee" (which is one of the definitions of "employee" in IRC section 3121(d)) and a "common-law employee"?

You seem to believe that they are two different things, but don't explain why, and I'm curious what you think the phrase "common-law employee" would mean if not an "individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee." What else could it mean?

I'm not expecting a coherent response, but I'm curious.

[Investor]

You seem to believe that they are two different things, but don't explain why, and I'm curious what you think the phrase "common-law employee" would mean if not an "individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee." What else could it mean?

I'm not expecting a coherent response, but I'm curious.

She seems to be laboring under the misconception that there are common law jurisdictions v. federal jurisdictions:

If they were common-law employee's would mean they are in the common-law jurisdiction. Therefore they wouldnt be subject to the federal jurisdiction found in 26CFR1.1-1(a), (b) and (c) now would they?

I think she means geographic jurisdiction, but cannot be certain. For example, the reasoning seems to be that an employee who is in Florida cannot be a common law employee if Florida persons are subject to federal jurisdiction?

Clearly a misconception of what "common law" means. It appears that she thinks there cannot be a jurisdiction in which both common law and statutory law apply. In reality, of course, I cannot imagine a jurisdiction in which common law and statutory law do not co-exist.

[Famspear]

More blather: In response to a comment at losthorizons from user "IMFResearch," the user known as "admin" states (on 25 September 2007, in the thread entitled "The 16th"):

You are proving to be one of the hardest-working and most articulate participants in this forum, IMFResearch, and you're obviously bright, as well. Isn't it time you put aside this long effort to nourish your resistance to the truth and accuracy of CtC, and become instead the powerful advocate of that liberating truth that you so easily could be?

Translation: Why is a smart guy like you wasting time with your own theories? Why aren't you simply recognizing the true greatness of me, Peter Hendrickson, and bowing down to the "liberating truth" that I bring to the world?

Or, as The Great One (Blowhard Hendrickson) stated recently: "Any 'theory' which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC [Cracking the Code] is simply wrong, and doesn't merit a single line of text in its defense or a moment's attention from anyone."

This, from an ex-con who has lost his latest civil case and who, on appeal, does not even properly identify the elements of the government's section 7405 cause of action against him.

[ASITStands]

Been watching the thread.

It appears there was some sort of revision to Pete's favorite section.

Wouldn't it be disheartening to construct a theory, based upon your reading of law, and find at the end you had overlooked some revision, which changed the meaning of your argument?

[webhick]

First Hendrickson is tempting IMFResearch to the "Dark Side", next he'll be telling him that he's his father.

[Dezcad]

I've watched it too.

IMF clearly refutes Pete's nonsense and, despite others who have posted before him, IMF has yet to be banned as a "troll".

How much longer until he is banned?

[Imalawman]

First Hendrickson is tempting IMFResearch to the "Dark Side", next he'll be telling him that he's his father.

Ha! beat me to it. I was just going to post the same thing. You disappoint me though, a short story detailing this attempt to sway him to the dark side would be more appropriate. (at some point IMF's hand, which is holding the IRC, gets cut off)

[webhick]

First Hendrickson is tempting IMFResearch to the "Dark Side", next he'll be telling him that he's his father.

Ha! beat me to it. I was just going to post the same thing. You disappoint me though, a short story detailing this attempt to sway him to the dark side would be more appropriate. (at some point IMF's hand, which is holding the IRC, gets cut off)

Haven't been feeling right lately, but I'll give it a shot. Please forgive any factual errors concerning the timelines and the saga of CtC. This is off-the-cuff and I haven't done any fact-checking yet and am working with a vague recollection of the events. That being said:

A short time ago in a reality far, far away...

Darth Hendrickson had risen to power, a power fueled by years of erroneous refunds to himself and his followers. As the Rebellion struck down random supporters, those that remained abandoned them to their fate. Darth taught them all that those who were vanquished deserved their fates, for they did not possess the CtC Force.

Eventually, the Rebellion launched an attack directly on Darth. And as expected, the Rebellion emerged victorious. Darth's stronghold came away cracked and his ego bruised. He cried out to the masses about the Rebellion's oppression of the truth, all while he was jettisoning the dissenters among his crew out the airlock.

And silently, during the night, Darth Bulten slipped away.

Without anyone to stroke Darth's ego, he looks to the remaining members of his flock...

Darth: I sense a great force within you...one I have not felt since Darth Bulten and I went on that weekend getaway in the tropics.
IMF: I won't do it! I won't share a hotel room with you!
Darth: You don't understand what is within you...the great power you possess. I could help your harness that power.
IMF: I must...resist...
Darth: You can't resist the power of an erroneous refund. You can't resist the power to govern over a flock of people...people who hang on your every word as though it were gospel!

To be continued....

[Quixote]

Been watching the thread.

It appears there was some sort of revision to Pete's favorite section.

Wouldn't it be disheartening to construct a theory, based upon your reading of law, and find at the end you had overlooked some revision, which changed the meaning of your argument?

It would be if the theory were even remotely grounded in reality. As Dan has pointed out, Pete isn't relying on §93, or even his edited version of it. He's relying on a misinterpretation of his edited version of an inapplicable section of an expired statute. The so-called revision (actually a similarly worded section of a related, but distinct act) won't faze him at all.

[notorial dissent]

Why should he let reality and fact get in the way of his carefully crafted delusion now, after he has put all that time and effort into making it the great card castle it is today? I mean really!!!!! Besides, facts just confuse things.

[ASITStands]

It appears Hendrickson finally banned IMFResearch.

He got too close to the truth it appears.

[Dezcad]

It appears Hendrickson finally banned IMFResearch.

He got too close to the truth it appears.

Or too far away from the "lie".