Blowhard's Petition for En Banc Re-Hearing of Appeal

[SteveSy]

It's probably a good thing you're delusional, because it stops you from understanding how really, truly stupid you are.

If that came from anyone but from the master court case quote surgeon himself I might consider it meaningful. You're no better than the worst of the Sui's just on the other side of the fence.

I still don't think he's saying someone can lie on purpose and the government must accept that as final regardless of evidence. If so I agree that's certainly stupid.

btw, if you want to continue the "You're so stupid" posts you can do so by yourself, it might give an indication that it was worthy of thought to begin with if I were to respond. I've got better things to think about like whether I need to take a dump or not.

[Nikki]

Steve:

One of the underlying premises of CtC is that a person can file a tax return, accompanied by forms allegedly correcting earnings mis-reported as taxable income, sign it and the IRS has to accept it because it's signed under penalties of perjury.

PH & his crew file false, evasive tax returns. PH has been put on notice that his view of the law is incorrect and that his returns are evasive.

He has been given the opportunity to file appropriate, correct returns. If he refuses to do so, he will face criminal charges for tax evasion.

Irrespective of his on-going delusion regarding what constitutes taxable income, once he has been told by the IRS that his view is wrong and has lost his challenges of the IRS' opinion administratively and the appropriate courts, he is obligated to obey the law as explained to him or face the consequences.

He, and his cohorts, are long overdue for the rude awakening they will soon experience.

[SteveSy]

Irrespective of his on-going delusion regarding what constitutes taxable income, once he has been told by the IRS that his view is wrong and has lost his challenges of the IRS' opinion administratively and the appropriate courts, he is obligated to obey the law as explained to him or face the consequences.

Maybe he is obligated to pay, I don't know. However, my point is and always has been, he may not believe the IRS or courts are correct concerning what his "income" is and its not right to force him to sign a document saying he believes they are correct and then force him to pay or charge him with evasion based on that forced testimony.

If they don't like his zero returns so be it, charge him based on the evidence they have on file. Its ridiculous to charge him with failing to file when he did file but claim he didn't really file because what he filed is not considered a "return" because they don't like what he attested to. It doesn't matter what the courts, IRS or you think is valid, he is signing something saying "to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete". If he doesn't believe this to be true why should he be forced to sign it under threat of punishment?
Like I said he can't even modify the statement above to include "based on the what I was told by the courts and the IRS I should place on this form". It would be rejected and considered not a return. They want people to unconditionally admit what they're saying is that person's personal belief under threat of punishment even if they don't, its BS.

He, and his cohorts, are long overdue for the rude awakening they will soon experience.

Maybe so, but there are right ways and wrong ways to gather evidence and punish people even though it may be clear they're guilty to you, me or the authorities.

[ASITStands]

Steve,

Notice what 'Nikki' says:

Irrespective of his on-going delusion regarding what constitutes taxable income, once he has been told by the IRS that his view is wrong and has lost his challenges of the IRS' opinion administratively and the appropriate courts, he is obligated to obey the law as explained to him or face the consequences.

If Pete Hendrickson decides not to change his testimony in accordance with the view of the Court, he only has to face the consequences of refusing to obey the Law. If that's his choice, it's his right to make that choice, and no one can force him not to do so.

As 'Nikki' said further:

PH & his crew file false, evasive tax returns. PH has been put on notice that his view of the law is incorrect and that his returns are evasive.

He has been given the opportunity to file appropriate, correct returns. If he refuses to do so, he will face criminal charges for tax evasion.

The part that's instructive to those who watch is seeing how he arrived at his decision and watching the consequences as it wends its way through the courts. It will eventually wend its way to criminal charges, and Pete will have another choice to make.

I'm sure there's already a criminal investigation in the wings waiting for the end of this case.

'Nikki' said it best:

One of the underlying premises of CtC is that a person can file a tax return, accompanied by forms allegedly correcting earnings mis-reported as taxable income, sign it and the IRS has to accept it because it's signed under penalties of perjury.

Hendrickson bases his entire theory of sworn testimony on Section 93 of the Act of 1862. We've discussed it many times and need not cover that here. Once it becomes evident to him he has nowhere to go other than criminal charges, we'll see how he reacts.

Both he and Bulten have decimated any Cheek defense they might have had.

[SteveSy]

Steve,

Notice what 'Nikki' says:

Irrespective of his on-going delusion regarding what constitutes taxable income, once he has been told by the IRS that his view is wrong and has lost his challenges of the IRS' opinion administratively and the appropriate courts, he is obligated to obey the law as explained to him or face the consequences.

If Pete Hendrickson decides not to change his testimony in accordance with the view of the Court, he only has to face the consequences of refusing to obey the Law. If that's his choice, it's his right to make that choice, and no one can force him not to do so.

That's the whole point though. He's being forced under threat of punishment to say he personally believes they're correct regardless if he does or not. Here's the icing on the cake, the IRS can then use that sworn testimony as evidence to show that he knew he had a legal duty all along to file the way they wanted him to.

Come on, that's just BS. Do you honestly believe every TP out there knows the government is right and they are wrong?

[Famspear]

I am shocked, just shocked, to find that SteveSy endorses Hendrickson's phony "forced testimony" rhetoric! Why, it's almost as though Steve professes to believe not only that he has the "right" to decide for himself what the law is, but that Hendrickson somehow has the same "right"!

Imagine a witness to a murder being called to the witness stand in a criminal case, and being asked to state whether he saw the defendant "shoot" the victim. The witness states under oath, "No, I did not see the defendant shoot the victim." Later, when prosecuted for perjury, the witness argues that he did not commit perjury. Reason? Under his own personal definition of the word "shoot", only a bow and arrow attack comes under the definition of a "shooting", whereas the victim in the case was killed with a firearm. He argues that although he realizes the government defines "shoot" to include an act with a firearm, he the witness "believes" that the only "true" definition of "shoot" is an act with bow and arrow.

Oh, this is oh-so-clever: Hendrickson doesn't like the federal income tax, so he comes up with his own theory about what the law is. He uses the transparently dishonest device of arguing that since he "believes" the law to be what he wants the law to be, the government cannot rightly "force" him to "testify," on a Form 1040, that his private sector wages are includible in gross income under the real tax law -- the real law of which he is obviously aware.

Sorry, Steve. Hendrickson cannot disagree with the government's interpretation of the federal income tax law without being aware of what that interpretation is. It is the awareness of the government's interpretation that defeats Hendrickson's phony rhetoric that he is somehow being ordered or forced to testify as to something he does not believe. Why?

Because the government's interpretation happens to be the correct one. Thus, Hendrickson cannot disagree with the government's interpretation of the law without demonstrating that he is aware of what the law actually is. Ordering Hendrickson to sign a tax return, under penalty of perjury, that reports his income in accordance with the actual tax law of which he is painfully aware (regardless of whether he accepts it or "believes" that it is the law) is not forcing Hendrickson to commit perjury.

[SteveSy]

Sorry, Steve. Hendrickson cannot disagree with the government's interpretation of the federal income tax law without being aware of what that interpretation is. It is the awareness of the government's interpretation that defeats Hendrickson's phony rhetoric that he is somehow being ordered or forced to testify as to something he does not believe. Why?

The statement that you sign attests to your personal belief, not someone else's.

Because the government's interpretation happens to be the correct one. Thus, Hendrickson cannot disagree with the government's interpretation of the law without demonstrating that he is aware of what the law actually is.

That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever seen. That assumes that whatever the government says is fact regardless if it is or not and you would have to admit with your signature that you believe it to be true or you will be punished. They could just as easily say you know you're required to do anything they wanted regardless of what it is and now you can be forced to admit its your personal belief its true and since you believe it you're required to comply regardless if you believe it or not. Here's the clincher, to argue its not true is to admit you know its true because you're obviously aware of what the law is. That's so asinine and so repulsive to the concept of freedom its pitiful. And you guys claim Sui's have gone off the deep end with their reasoning....holly crap!

Golly gee, Famspear and his logic has just exposed a way to eliminate every ACLU constitutional lawsuit there ever was. I mean, if the ACLU is arguing something isn't constitutional then obviously they're aware of the authorities position on it and therefore they are admitting they are wrong to begin with. All that's left to do is require, under threat of punishment, that everyone challenging the constitutionality of something to sign a jurat stating they believe the government's position is their personal belief.

[Famspear]

The statement that you sign attests to your personal belief, not someone else's.

. . . . That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever seen. That assumes that whatever the government says is fact regardless if it is or not and you would have to admit with your signature that you believe it to be true or you will be punished. They could just as easily say you know you're required to do anything they wanted regardless of what it is and now you can be forced to admit its your personal belief its true and since you believe it you're required to comply regardless if you believe it or not. Here's the clincher, to argue its not true is to admit you know its true because you're obviously aware of what the law is. That's so asinine and so repulsive to the concept of freedom its pitiful. And you guys claim Sui's have gone off the deep end with their reasoning....holly crap!

Golly gee, Famspear and his logic has just exposed a way to eliminate every ACLU constitutional lawsuit there ever was. I mean, if the ACLU is arguing something isn't constitutional then obviously they're aware of the authorities position on it and therefore they are admitting they are wrong to begin with. All that's left to do is require, under threat of punishment, that everyone challenging the constitutionality of something to sign a jurat stating they believe the government's position is their personal belief.

Steve, the correct term is "holy crap," not "holly crap."

Seriously, you are actually right on one point. You are supposed to sign the tax return based on your personal belief.

Hendrickson has obviously studied the Internal Revenue Code and other statutes, and the case law, in depth. He is aware of the IRS interpretation of the law. He is aware that the courts have ruled gross wages of private sector employees to be taxable, etc., etc. He disagrees with the IRS and the courts. He seeks to supplant the real law with his own theory of the law, as itemized in his "book," Cracking the Code. A reasonable jury could therefore find, as a matter of fact, that Hendrickson does not really BELIEVE what he says he believes. A reasonable jury could find that Hendrickson does not have an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. A reasonable jury could find that Hendrickson is instead straining to argue that his own interpretation of the law is somehow the "real" law. A reasonable jury could find that Hendrickson has STUDIED the law, is AWARE of the law, and has simply come to a "studied" but incorrect conclusion that the law is what he wants the law to be rather than what the courts have ruled the law to be. And under the law, that kind of "belief" -- if you want to call it a "belief" -- is not an actual good faith belief caused by the complexity of the tax law. That kind of so-called "belief" is really nothing more than the DISAGREEMENT with a law -- a law of which the so-called "believer" is painfully -- and obviously -- aware.

Neither the perjury statutes nor the tax statutes allow each individual to replace a definition of a word or a rule of law of which the individual is AWARE with his OWN personal view about what the definition is or what the rule is. Just as the individual in my example is AWARE that the generally accepted meaning of "shoot" includes not just "with a bow and arrow" but also "with a firearm", etc., Hendrickson is AWARE that the generally accepted meaning of "wages" is not just "public sector wages" but also "private sector wages", etc.

Obdurate, recalcitrant, stubborn adherence to one's own arguments, in the face of overwhelming court rulings to the contrary, is not a personal "belief" in the sense in which the perjury statutes operate, and it is not a personal "belief" for purposes of "willfulness" under section 7201. It's just a bow and arrow argument.

[The Observer]

Steve, the correct term is "holy crap," not "holly crap."

In regards to the content of Steve's post, I think the correct spelling is "wholly crap."

[Famspear]

Speaking of "wholly crap:"

Golly gee, Famspear and his logic has just exposed a way to eliminate every ACLU constitutional lawsuit there ever was. I mean, if the ACLU is arguing something isn't constitutional then obviously they're aware of the authorities position on it and therefore they are admitting they are wrong to begin with. . . .

Whaaaattt?????? Steve, go get yourself some caffeine! Wake up, my man!

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever seen. That assumes that whatever the government says is fact regardless if it is or not and you would have to admit with your signature that you believe it to be true or you will be punished . . .

No, go back and read the material again, Steve. The government (meaning in this case the IRS and the DOJ) are sometimes wrong about a particular point of law. And when they are, the courts rule against them, and in favor of the taxpayer.

But Hendrickson fails not because he disagrees with the IRS or the DOJ, but rather because he disagrees with the case law. It just so happens that the IRS and the DOJ and the case law all conform to one another, and all of these contradict Hendrickson's arguments. Re-read my comments above.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, where Hendrickson engages in his own "study" and comes to his own conclusion about what the law is, he must take the risk of being wrong if he is ever charged with tax evasion or other federal tax crimes where "willfulness" is an element.

In terms of the tax perjury statutes or general perjury statutes, I suspect that the law is somewhat similar. I suspect that a "bow and arrow" argument (the argument that "MY" definition of the word "shoot" means only "with a bow and arrow"), as a "defense" to a charge of perjury, probably will not work with a jury. And I suspect that if a jury found a defendant using the "bow and arrow" example above to be guilty of perjury, a court would rule that the jury's verdict was reasonable.

The law simply does not allow people to go around making up their own legal rules and their own definitions of words, and then claiming they "believe" what they say they "believe" for purposes of the perjury statute when the evidence shows they were AWARE of the real tax law or, in the case of the bow and arrow argument, the real, generally accepted definition of the word "shoot."

[cynicalflyer]

Steve, the correct term is "holy crap," not "holly crap."

In regards to the content of Steve's post, I think the correct spelling is "wholly crap."

Actually, "holly crap" works here, too.

Holly belongs to the genus Ilex. For example, American Holly is Ilex opaca.

Ilex is obviously special Illuminati writing for I LEX, or I LAW, a shortened Masonic version of I AM THE LAW.

Thus, the phrase "holly crap" can be translated, transmuted, and transmogrified as as "I AM THE LAW crap", something Steve seems to specialize in from what I have read (i.e. the law is what I say it is, not judges).

This leads me to the species of holly known as Ilex vomitoria...

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ILVO

but that is another post for another day.

[webhick]

Holly belongs to the genus Ilex. For example, American Holly is Ilex opaca.

Ilex is obviously special Illuminati writing for I LEX, or I LAW, a shortened Masonic version of I AM THE LAW.

Don't forget that opaca looks similar to alpaca, which is related to the llama which is not only our mascot, but also the backing for Quibbies.

[Famspear]

Steve, the correct term is "holy crap," not "holly crap."

In regards to the content of Steve's post, I think the correct spelling is "wholly crap."

Actually, "holly crap" works here, too.

Holly belongs to the genus Ilex. For example, American Holly is Ilex opaca.

Ilex is obviously special Illuminati writing for I LEX, or I LAW, a shortened Masonic version of I AM THE LAW.

Thus, the phrase "holly crap" can be translated, transmuted, and transmogrified as as "I AM THE LAW crap", something Steve seems to specialize in from what I have read (i.e. the law is what I say it is, not judges).

This leads me to the species of holly known as Ilex vomitoria...

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ILVO

but that is another post for another day.

Holly belongs to the genus Ilex. For example, American Holly is Ilex opaca.

Ilex is obviously special Illuminati writing for I LEX, or I LAW, a shortened Masonic version of I AM THE LAW.

Don't forget that opaca looks similar to alpaca, which is related to the llama which is not only our mascot, but also the backing for Quibbies.

Wow, man. Like, I am becoming even more tooottally cosmologically conscious, now, man. I never saw all these hidden connections! Far out! The Illuminati rule!

[.]

The law simply does not allow people to go around making up their own legal rules and their own definitions of words

Something of which you will never, ever convince Sybil.

As you know, you're wasting your keystrokes. Sybil has been absolute, appointed-for-life King-of-the-Law in Sybil-land for at least the last 5 years.

[SteveSy]

But Hendrickson fails not because he disagrees with the IRS or the DOJ, but rather because he disagrees with the case law. It just so happens that the IRS and the DOJ and the case law all conform to one another, and all of these contradict Hendrickson's arguments. Re-read my comments above.

That's fine...however, how can the government force someone to sign something saying they believe something to be true and correct when they don't. I can sit here and tell you right now, I've read all the court cases and what the IRS has said and I still do not believe them. Just because YOU have accepted the fact that just becuase the courts say something means its fact doesn't mean everyone else does.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, where Hendrickson engages in his own "study" and comes to his own conclusion about what the law is, he must take the risk of being wrong if he is ever charged with tax evasion or other federal tax crimes where "willfulness" is an element.

And I'm fine with that too....it's the failure to file charge I have issue with. It's ridiculous to conclude someone didn't file, and then charge them with failing to file, when they did file just because what you wrote is not in accordance with the IRS's or the courts beliefs or becuase you refused to sign a jurat stating you personally believe what they said is true and accurate.

In terms of the tax perjury statutes or general perjury statutes, I suspect that the law is somewhat similar. I suspect that a "bow and arrow" argument (the argument that "MY" definition of the word "shoot" means only "with a bow and arrow"), as a "defense" to a charge of perjury, probably will not work with a jury. And I suspect that if a jury found a defendant using the "bow and arrow" example above to be guilty of perjury, a court would rule that the jury's verdict was reasonable.

And if you honestly believe the "bow and arrow" theory why should you be forced to lie and sign something saying you believe something else?

The law simply does not allow people to go around making up their own legal rules and their own definitions of words, and then claiming they "believe" what they say they "believe" for purposes of the perjury statute when the evidence shows they were AWARE of the real tax law or, in the case of the bow and arrow argument, the real, generally accepted definition of the word "shoot."

It's not a matter of making up your own legal rules. It's a matter of forcing someone to sign something saying they believe something when they don't. I've seen several cases where signed returns were used against the taxpayer as evidence to show he knew he was required to fill out the form as the IRS has directed.

"I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete."

That specifically says "I", not the court, IRS or Famspear but the person signing it. Just because the courts, IRS or you believe differently does not require everyone else to also believe it. I'm sure the courts ruled against the colonists as to whether there was a violation of law. Do you honestly believe the colonists would have approved of the British government forcing them to sign a document stating they believed the British government was acting lawfully? Do you also honestly believe they would have allowed the new government to force people, under threat of criminal charges and punishment of up to a year in prison, to sign something stating they believed something when they didn't even if the courts told them they were wrong? I mean this is so fundamentally wrong its pitiful.

Maybe he is wrong and maybe he knows it and is only trying to scam. It certainly doesn't mean everyone believes the court or the IRS concerning the income tax. I can post several examples right now, that weren't overturned by the Supreme Court where a circuit court got it completely wrong concerning the income tax. Many of you will even admit they were wrong which proves they are not incapable of being wrong.

[LPC]

I still don't think he's saying someone can lie on purpose and the government must accept that as final regardless of evidence. If so I agree that's certainly stupid.

One of your less endearing qualities is your insistence on believing that people mean something different than what they have actually written whenever it suits your purposes.

So, for example, you believe that the Supreme Court did not really mean what Cardozo wrote in Steward Machine because you want to believe something different than what the court said.

In this case, you want to believe that Hendrickson did not mean what he wrote because what he wrote was ridiculous, and you don't want to believe that Hendrickson is that out of touch with reality.

[ASITStands]

Wow, man. Like, I am becoming even more tooottally cosmologically conscious, now, man. I never saw all these hidden connections! Far out! The Illuminati rule!

Have you been hittin' the weed again? Get back to work!

... how can the government force someone to sign something saying they believe something to be true and correct when they don't.

Exactly the point! Hendrickson would have been better served by remaining silent [i.e., remaining a non-filer], and he can reserve that silence now in the face of the injunction to file "normal" returns with the caveat that he be willing to face the consequences.

Because it's obvious he's aware of the law, as it's both written and adjudicated, it places him in a particularly risky place to have claimed his "income" was not "wages," as it places him contrary to adjudicated law and creates what amounts to a "lie" on his initial returns.

What might initially have been willful failure to file [misdemeanor] has now become both filing false and fraudulent statements and evasion, as well as conspiracy to defraud.

And, there's conspiracy to obstruct and impede plus perjury issues.

His ploy to write the book and sponsor a scheme to obtain refunds [which he sees as the "truth about the income tax" but the government sees as an "abusive tax scheme"], as well as his failure to defend in court when given the opportunity [remember, he didn't use 'Cracking the Code' in his own defense] has now put him at risk of worse charges than before.

As for being forced to change his testimony is concerned, the best course would be silence. That would place him only in contempt [first civil then criminal]. He might defend on Fifth Amendment rights, but it might be better than perjury or false and fraudulent statements.

He's backed into a corner by his own choosing. I do not expect him to file "normal" returns, as I believe he will stick with his announced theory, but it will not go well with him. He should seriously consider how not to make things worse, as it's easy to do.

My suggestion would be that he file "normal" returns and try to mitigate criminal charges, but seeing his history, I'm fearful he will not respond to that suggestion. Think of his wife.

He may be willing to spend the better part of 60 months in prison, but is he willing to commit his wife to a similar fate? And, what of his employment or family? Scary.

[SteveSy]

So, for example, you believe that the Supreme Court did not really mean what Cardozo wrote in Steward Machine because you want to believe something different than what the court said.

I know what the court said, they even gave examples of state statutes and cases all of which prove you surgically cut the quote ignoring all the context in which it was stated. None of the examples comply with the meaning you try and put forth, not a single one, but that's ok Dan.

[LPC]

So, for example, you believe that the Supreme Court did not really mean what Cardozo wrote in Steward Machine because you want to believe something different than what the court said.

I know what the court said, they even gave examples of state statutes and cases all of which prove you surgically cut the quote ignoring all the context in which it was stated. None of the examples comply with the meaning you try and put forth, not a single one, but that's ok Dan.

The only meaning I put forth is the plain meaning what the court actually wrote:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.”