The Gov't has filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Proposed Witnesses, part of which relates to witnesses that have been identified by Mark Lane and PH as:
For each witness whose testimony will impact upon the defendant's statements that the
filings were not false, the numeral (3) will follow the prospective witness's name.
Here is the list of those witnesses, some of which I readily recognize as LH forum members. How the defense thinks that these witnesses can testify about the "falsity" of PH's filings is beyond me.
Mark C. Phillips Attorney Texas
Elias Aoun Attorney Virginia
Jerry Arnowitz Attorney Massachusetts
Michael Carver Attorney New York
John O'Neil Green Attorney Idaho
Eric Smithers Attorney New York
Patrick Mooney Businessman Virginia
Sarah Waltner Paralegal Arizona
Catherine Alexander Businesswoman Oregon
Joe Fennell CPA Georgia
Matt Zelina Businessman
Understandably, the govt's basis to strike these witnesses is (from the Motion to Strike):
As to the third category of witnesses, it appears that the defendant intends to present
testimony that the defendant’s claims that he received zero ($0) wages were true and accurate.
Such testimony does not concern an issue of fact, but an issue of law. The witness testimony
would not be relevant as it is the sole province of the Court to instruct the jury on the state of the law. Therefore, those witnesses should be precluded from testifying.
If Hendrickson believes that a bunch of people saying "I agree" means something, then he may be more psychologically dependent on the Lost Horizons echo chamber than I thought possible.
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.
As to the third category of witnesses, it appears that the defendant intends to present
testimony that the defendant’s claims that he received zero ($0) wages were true and accurate.
Such testimony does not concern an issue of fact, but an issue of law. The witness testimony
would not be relevant as it is the sole province of the Court to instruct the jury on the state of the law. Therefore, those witnesses should be precluded from testifying.
The government seems to be buying into PH's absurd notion that the characterization of his income, as wages or something else, is relevant. Unless PH is arguing that his wages were actually statutorially excluded from gross income, what possible difference could it make whether they were wages or not? Isn't the testimony irrelevant because it addresses an issue that is not part of the government's case and cannot be a part of any possible defense?
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
As to the third category of witnesses, it appears that the defendant intends to present
testimony that the defendant’s claims that he received zero ($0) wages were true and accurate.
Such testimony does not concern an issue of fact, but an issue of law. The witness testimony
would not be relevant as it is the sole province of the Court to instruct the jury on the state of the law. Therefore, those witnesses should be precluded from testifying.
The government seems to be buying into PH's absurd notion that the characterization of his income, as wages or something else, is relevant. Unless PH is arguing that his wages were actually statutorially excluded from gross income, what possible difference could it make whether they were wages or not? Isn't the testimony irrelevant because it addresses an issue that is not part of the government's case and cannot be a part of any possible defense?
Some of the counts (Counts 5 through 10) are based on the allegation that PH's Form 4852 were fraudulent in that he reported $0 wages on the Form 4852 when he in fact had wages. For those counts, the characterization of his income as wages is relevant.
As to the third category of witnesses, it appears that the defendant intends to present
testimony that the defendant’s claims that he received zero ($0) wages were true and accurate.
Isn't it PH's contention that only the parties to the transaction, i.e., he and his employer, are qualified to testify on that issue? Is he abandoning his principles in the interest of staying out of prison? Pete is as likely to do that as he would be to rat on his friends to ... Never mind.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
My question, would be what would these witnesses be testifying to?
There is no conceivable way they can have “personal” knowledge of what Pete did or didn’t receive from his employer, or if in fact if he was even employed at the time, unless they were his legal counsel or accountant-and even then they really couldn’t testify without waiving privilege, or in hanging him if they did.
Otherwise, wouldn’t it simply be hearsay or opinion, and so not relevant or admissable? They can’t testify to the law, and since they have no other knowledge there would be no point in them testifying. So, I’m trying to figure out what Pete thinks they could testify about.
I agree that the argument of whether he received wages is relevant, however, I still do not see how any of those people could have anything relevant to testify about? So, I am of the opinion that the gov't is within bounds to request them excluded.
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.
Quixote wrote:
The government seems to be buying into PH's absurd notion that the characterization of his income, as wages or something else, is relevant. Unless PH is arguing that his wages were actually statutorially excluded from gross income, what possible difference could it make whether they were wages or not? Isn't the testimony irrelevant because it addresses an issue that is not part of the government's case and cannot be a part of any possible defense?
Whether Pete's income was wages or other compensation would be relevant. The testimony of those who paid the compensation would be relevant to establish facts in which to apply the law to determine wages or not. If his income was determined not to be wages but rather another type of compensation would be a ruling where the government may win some of the counts but would lose the war.
Excuse me, but isn't this case really just a matter of
Pete worked
Someone gave Pete a check every week
Pete says (deleted from evidence, cause Pete ain't allowed to say what the law is) and therefore he didn't get any "wages tips or other compensation"
The guy that paid Pete and issued him a W-2 has the canceled checks and a papertrail that shows they went into Pete's bank. (this is real evidence)
Pete loses.
????
Is there much else that matters?
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.
Gregg wrote:Excuse me, but isn't this case really just a matter of
Pete worked
Someone gave Pete a check every week
Pete says (deleted from evidence, cause Pete ain't allowed to say what the law is) and therefore he didn't get any "wages tips or other compensation"
The guy that paid Pete and issued him a W-2 has the canceled checks and a papertrail that shows they went into Pete's bank. (this is real evidence)
Pete loses.
????
Is there much else that matters?
Yes alot matters, if it was that simple the government would have wrapped Pete up in a little ball years ago..... but with 10 million bucks and more going out every day the government really had to go with what they had and not what they wanted.
Pete can testify who he is and his employer can testify who they are and then its a matter of law whether Pete had wages or other type of compensation that does not fall in within the definition of wages under the relevant statutes.
Also other testimony as to whether Pete was willful or not is a matter of law.
If his income was determined not to be wages but rather another type of compensation would be a ruling where the government may win some of the counts but would lose the war.
I assume you meant to say that if Pete's income were determined not to be wages the government might lose some of the counts (i.e., counts 5 through 10), but win the case. It's possible, but unlikely, that Pete's business relationship with the company that pays him is not that of employee/employer. But if that is so, it is so due to facts peculiar to their relationship and will have no impact on any other case. As I understand it, the law concerning the existence of an employer/employee relationship is well settled. Long before the existence of employment taxes, the employer/employee relationship, or as the old cases called it, the master/servant relationship, was important in establishing tort liability.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
If his income was determined not to be wages but rather another type of compensation would be a ruling where the government may win some of the counts but would lose the war.
I assume you meant to say that if Pete's income were determined not to be wages the government might lose some of the counts (i.e., counts 5 through 10), but win the case. It's possible, but unlikely, that Pete's business relationship with the company that pays him is not that of employee/employer. But if that is so, it is so due to facts peculiar to their relationship and will have no impact on any other case. As I understand it, the law concerning the existence of an employer/employee relationship is well settled. Long before the existence of employment taxes, the employer/employee relationship, or as the old cases called it, the master/servant relationship, was important in establishing tort liability.
Its not the employer/employee relationship but rather the type of employer and type of employee that may or may not generate wages. It is my understandng wages, as defined , can only be generated by certain specific employers/employees. All other employers/employees may or may not generate compensation for services.
wow.. I just got changed from Cannoneer to Pirates Mate... is that a promotion or demotion
Its not the employer/employee relationship but rather the type of employer and type of employee that may or may not generate wages.
There are special terms for the parties in an employer/employee relationship that does not generate wages. The employer in such a relationship is called a "skinflint" and the employee is a "patsy." Veteran employees in such a relationship are known as "idiots".
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Gregg wrote:Excuse me, but isn't this case really just a matter of
Pete worked
Someone gave Pete a check every week
Pete says (deleted from evidence, cause Pete ain't allowed to say what the law is) and therefore he didn't get any "wages tips or other compensation"
The guy that paid Pete and issued him a W-2 has the canceled checks and a papertrail that shows they went into Pete's bank. (this is real evidence)
Pete loses.
????
Is there much else that matters?
Yes alot matters, if it was that simple the government would have wrapped Pete up in a little ball years ago..... but with 10 million bucks and more going out every day the government really had to go with what they had and not what they wanted.
Pete can testify who he is and his employer can testify who they are and then its a matter of law whether Pete had wages or other type of compensation that does not fall in within the definition of wages under the relevant statutes.
Also other testimony as to whether Pete was willful or not is a matter of law.
whoosh!
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.
If his income was determined not to be wages but rather another type of compensation would be a ruling where the government may win some of the counts but would lose the war.
I assume you meant to say that if Pete's income were determined not to be wages the government might lose some of the counts (i.e., counts 5 through 10), but win the case. It's possible, but unlikely, that Pete's business relationship with the company that pays him is not that of employee/employer. But if that is so, it is so due to facts peculiar to their relationship and will have no impact on any other case. As I understand it, the law concerning the existence of an employer/employee relationship is well settled. Long before the existence of employment taxes, the employer/employee relationship, or as the old cases called it, the master/servant relationship, was important in establishing tort liability.
Its not the employer/employee relationship but rather the type of employer and type of employee that may or may not generate wages. It is my understandng wages, as defined , can only be generated by certain specific employers/employees. All other employers/employees may or may not generate compensation for services.
wow.. I just got changed from Cannoneer to Pirates Mate... is that a promotion or demotion
your understanding is, umm, how to put it, WRONG,
The kind of employer whose payments to you are taxable is ones who pay you. Contrary to Pete's nonsense, everything that comes in to you is taxable gross income unless specifically excluded elsewhere in law. You make more than the minimum after deductions, you pay income tax.
Also, in passing, it is impossible to be a resident of one of the fifty states but not of the United States, the 16th amendment is a real law, and there are no aliens about to land on the White House Lawn and restore Constitutional Money. The sooner you wrap your mind around these things, the less you'll pay in fines, penalties and possibly jail time.
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.
Contrary to Pete's nonsense, everything that comes in to you is taxable gross income unless specifically excluded elsewhere in law.
Not quite right. Your statement could be interpreted to mean that even a return of capital (or more generally, a return of basis) would be included in gross income. In the context of payment for services rendered, however, you are absolutely correct.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Noah wrote:Yes alot matters, if it was that simple the government would have wrapped Pete up in a little ball years ago
It really is amusing how the same bunch of folks who decry the govt's supposed inefficiency and stupidity in other matters nonetheless use any govt delay in squashing an insignificant petty criminal like Hendrickson as proof that he is somehow right.
Pete can testify who he is and his employer can testify who they are and then its a matter of law whether Pete had wages or other type of compensation that does not fall in within the definition of wages under the relevant statutes.
Unbelievable. That is all absolutely correct. Pete will testify who he is, his employer will testify who he is and what he paid Pete, and then the judge will decide as a matter of law (as have all the courts up to SCOTUS in Pete's civil case) that Pete received wages subject to income tax. The only issue of fact for the jury will be whether Pete acted willfully.
Also other testimony as to whether Pete was willful or not is a matter of law. . . . It is my understandng wages, as defined , can only be generated by certain specific employers/employees.
Bzzt! But you almost made it to the end.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
wserra wrote:It really is amusing how the same bunch of folks who decry the govt's supposed inefficiency and stupidity in other matters nonetheless use any govt delay in squashing an insignificant petty criminal like Hendrickson as proof that he is somehow right.
I do not consider the government to either inefficient or stupid, but, quite the opposite. I don't believe this case is going to be quite as simple as one might thing. Just my opinion. But time will tell.
Think about the concept of "compensation for services" for a while.
Wrap your mind around it and its subtle meaning -- receiving compensation (monetary or other) for services you perform for another person, either a natural or a legal person.
Now, with that thought foremost in your mind, see if you can find the phrase "compensation for services" anywhere in the definition of gross income.
Now, see if you can find anything, anywhere in the tax code which supports PoopyHead's contention that there are some types of compensation for service which magically vanish from taxable income.
Let me warn you, though, don't spend too much time on it. It just isn't there.
Pete is wrong. He wants to not pay taxes so he, lilke many of the gurus before him, twists the meaning of the law -- ignoring specific definitions in it -- and ignores every court decision to the contrary, and comes up with a plate of word salad that seems to support his desire.
He is wrong, but he'll have several uninterrupted years to go back through the law and come up with a new theory.
