CtC Forum 2

[Doktor Avalanche]

Liarboy, why did you drop the last sentence from the Wikipedia article you copied:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Are you so incredibly stupid that you believe that you could copy from the very first Google hit that comes up against 'supreme court income tax involuntary servitude' and no one would notice?

He must be a refugee from YouTube. I run into this all the time on there.

[Brandybuck]

Are you so incredibly stupid that you believe that you could copy from the very first Google hit that comes up against 'supreme court income tax involuntary servitude' and no one would notice?

In the TPs worldview, that ruling doesn't count. I have no idea why it doesn't count, but trust me, they'll find some excuse to brush it aside.

[notorial dissent]

Liarboy, why did you drop the last sentence from the Wikipedia article you copied:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Are you(Liarboy/whining beagles/etc) so incredibly stupid that you believe that you could copy from the very first Google hit that comes up against 'supreme court income tax involuntary servitude' and no one would notice?

I wouldn’t have thought it was ever even a question, or in question after seeing his postings.

I do like the new identifier for him, clean, concise, and oh so accurate.

The ruling obviously doesn't count because it disagrees with their fantasy du jour, that wasn't hard to figure out at all. Anyone who will pick and choose regulations, or parts thereof, to suit their fantasy, will certainly do the same with legal rulings.

[Nikki]

Sorry, but my post was written before the election results were in.

The appropriate form of reference is now "His Excellency"

[Imalawman]

Liarboy, why did you drop the last sentence from the Wikipedia article you copied:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Are you so incredibly stupid that you believe that you could copy from the very first Google hit that comes up against 'supreme court income tax involuntary servitude' and no one would notice?

Nozick had some very interesting takes on this subject in "theory of distributive justice". I read it this past year. He argues pretty persuasively that a progressive tax structure is a form of involuntary servitude. I disagree, but at least its a literate argument.

[notorial dissent]

Sorry, but my post was written before the election results were in.

The appropriate form of reference is now "His Excellency"

I'll agree to a compromise, we can call him "His Excellency", Liarboy the first.

[grixit]

"His Mendacity".

[Nikki]

Sorry, but my post was written before the election results were in.

The appropriate form of reference is now "His Excellency"

I'll agree to a compromise, we can call him "His Excellency", Liarboy the first.

I love it

[notorial dissent]

And we can use "His Mendacity" when referring to him familiarly, as in with contempt. What more could you ask for?

[Kimokeo]

"by Nikki on Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:43 pm

Next, they convince themselves that there's some loophole in the tax laws that will let them not pay."


I found them. There's three loopholes I found in my copy of the IRC.

They are all in the left side margin (except when I'm reading the opposing page).

[Famspear]

The Hendrickson page at Dan's Tax Protester Dossier web site has been updated for this one, as follows:

In another case, an individual filed his 2005 federal income tax return reporting "zero" for wages, claiming a refund of the taxes withheld from his pay. A section 6702 frivolous penalty of $500 was imposed by the IRS. In the resulting litigation in the United States Tax Court, the individual argued that he was due the refund because his compensation constituted "earnings for private-sector, non-federally-privileged work" that the individual had performed as an engineer for his employer. The Tax Court ruled that the argument was "frivolous and groundless," and imposed a separate penalty of $5,000 under section 6673 for engaging in frivolous litigation. Ragan v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11966-08L, United States Tax Court, Order and Decision (Feb. 19, 2009).

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

The background on this:

In another web site, an individual has represented to me that he is indeed the taxpayer in this case, and that he did indeed use Hendrickson's Cracking the Code method on the return in question. He is now admitting to me that Hendrickson is wrong on what the law is. Here is some of what he's posted at the other web site. His reference to "Larry Williams" is a reference to me (that being just another pseudonym I use):

So to the list of "Mooney, Fennell, and Scott," [CtC adherents who have lost in court] add "Ragan" - that's me. Hopefully that gives me some "street cred" and the CtC filers will listen. You don't have to agree, but please at least listen.

I agree with Pete on his interpretation of what the law should be, but I agree with Larry Williams on what the law IS. Please listen to Larry. His information is a healthy dose of reality.

I fought the IRS for two years and the Tax Court for one year. After getting into Tax Court, I took a paralegal course, and then Jurisdictionary. Here's what I learned - explained in terms that make sense to me. If they don't make sense to you, arguing won't help - it's the IDEA that's important, not the terminology:

The CtC argument depends on the Constitution, Supreme Court (and lower) decisions, statutes, and statutory construction. Problem is, there is a branch of law that it completely misses, and for lack of a better term, I will call this the "Law of the Courts."

The "Law of the Courts" is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, it just simply "is." It is made up of many components - a many-headed hydra, and to prevail in court you need to deal with ALL of the heads. As an example of one head, look at stare decisis - the Law of the Courts is made up of precedent. Stare decisis results in some good decisions, some bad decisions, but the doctrine itself is not evil, in fact it is GOOD to be able to depend that the court will act the same way this time that it always has. Again, that's a grossly simplified version of only one of many facets, and Jurisdictionary plus a paralegal class will only scratch the surface.

The "Law of the Courts" is REAL LAW.

THAT LAW requires the private ordinary citizen to pay income tax. THAT LAW is going to enable me to sign without perjury a 1040 saying that I owe taxes. THAT LAW is what I am going to follow from here on out, until THAT LAW is changed. There is only one way to change THAT LAW, and that is to come into court with a proper cause of action with competent facts and evidence, and get a jury to change THAT LAW, and have that change survive on the inevitable government appeal.

I'm not ready or competent to do that - are you?

Larry knows THAT LAW very well. Larry's position is EXACTLY what you are going to encounter in the courtroom, therefore you should include Larry's knowledge in your decision-making. I have decided to quit this battle. Does that mean I'm "giving up?" I hope not. I'm continuing with paralegal studies, might get a job as a paralegal, hope to start law school, and maybe in 10 years I'll be able to affect change to THAT LAW. If someone beats me to it, then Praise God, I'll use those acquired legal skills to fight some other battle for freedom.

And consider this possibility - every person who goes into court unprepared for the battle and loses creates on-point case law against CtC principles. Are you prepared? If not, you have no business there. In court, if you don't KNOW that you are going to win, then you will probably lose.

I have been there. I do not believe everything that Larry believes, but overall, the law IS exactly what he says it is. Please listen to Larry, and make a fully-informed decision.

Based on other information this person posted, I assume he is indeed the litgant in the cited Ragan case, and that he did use Cracking the Code on his tax return, etc.

[Famspear]

The former CtC follower wrote:

There is only one way to change THAT LAW, and that is to come into court with a proper cause of action with competent facts and evidence, and get a jury to change THAT LAW, and have that change survive on the inevitable government appeal.

Obviously, that's not precisely correct; a jury verdict contrary to the law (such as the case of jury nullification) does not really change the law itself and, does not have a stare decisis effect.

However, at this point in this fellow's learning process, my tendency is to cut the guy some slack.

[Famspear]

A fake quote in Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code? Awwww, that would never happen......

In a thread at losthorizons.com entitled Error in CtC book, user "freeme" dares to question the omnipotence of the PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson:

I am posting the following on behalf of a friend who has recently completed reading CtC and whose registration for the forum has not yet been approved. His petition to the Tax Court is due by June 29. He emailed the Tax Court Task Force [apparently, a subset of Hendrickson's Heroes] a couple of days ago - no response received as yet. Below is what he asked me to post. Any help would be appreciated.

On p. 24 of the CtC book, the following quote has the wrong citation:

"... "income", as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that come in. The true function of the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit the meaning of the word "income"."

The cite given, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918), is wrong, doesn't contain that text. I looked it up in findlaw.com.

I can't use it without the proper cite. Does anyone know the the correct citation?

My petition to the US Tax Court is due by 6/29; a speedy reply would surely be appreciated.

Thank you for your help.

Richard

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1938

Boy, it's times like this that I wish I had a full copy of Hendrickson's timeless classic. I just can't seem to generate the energy to spring for the cost of one.

[Famspear]

Speaking of Southern Pacific Company v. Lowe, this is from something I wrote in another web site:

What the Court actually said was:

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., and Hays, Collector, v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., decided May 20, 1918), the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts--everything that comes in--are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income," and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term "income" has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 416, 417), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two Acts.

In Southern Pacific Company v. Lowe, the Supreme Court ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913, the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114 (Oct. 3, 1913). No issues involving the definition of income with respect to wages, salary or other compensation for labor were decided by the Court.

EDIT: I corrected the text above -- there was a constitutional issue -- it's just that it did not involve wages, etc.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Boy, it's times like this that I wish I had a full copy of Hendrickson's timeless classic. I just can't seem to generate the energy to spring for the cost of one.

I have that problem, too.

That, or I just have a huge problem giving money to lying sacks of crap.

[LPC]

Boy, it's times like this that I wish I had a full copy of Hendrickson's timeless classic. I just can't seem to generate the energy to spring for the cost of one.

Not having a copy of the one true gospel is a limitation, because the kool-aid drinkers really aren't willing to talk to you unless you can quote chapter and verse.

In LH2, someone challenged whether the Lord High Hendrickson had ever really written something, and I replied that I couldn't say that it was in the book, but it was definitely on his web pages, but apparrently that doesn't count. If it's not in ink in the Sacred Tome, then it doesn't really exist.

See http://www.losthorizons2.com/viewforum.php?f=4 for the actual exchange.

[Famspear]

I was getting the same song and dance from another of Hendrickson's Heroes on still another web site just today. Yes, he tried to imply that Peter Hendrickson's comments on his web site don't count. Under this particular theory, you cannot critique His Blowhardiness unless you read the book itself. This was my response:

. . . . . as I have stated over and over and over and over, I have not read the entire book, Cracking the Code, by Peter Hendrickson. I have read the chapters he posted on his web site, and I have read his own commentary about his book that he is posted on his web site, and I have listened to recordings of him talking about his scheme.

And I don't need to read his book to know that the book promotes a tax evasion scheme, a criminal activity.

John, the rest of us don't need to read Adolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, to know that Hitler promoted a scheme to kill the Jews and to invade Russia, and to expand the territory of Greater Germany, to find lebensraum -- and we are just as confident that we are right about Hitler's scheme as we are about what Peter Hendrickson's scheme is.

And the the District Court, the Appeals Court and the United States Supreme Court judges did not need to read Hendrickson's book to know what the legal status of his tax scheme is, John.

And I don't need to read Hendrickson's book to know that every single one of his followers (Mooney, Scott, Fennell, etc.) who have ended up in federal court have lost as well.

And I don't need to read Hendrickson's book to know he is under a court order prohibiting him from using his own Cracking the Code scheme (you know, John, the one he describes in the book?) on his own tax returns.

And I don't need to read Hendrickson's book to know that he is currently facing felony tax charges for using his scheme on his own tax return.

[notorial dissent]

Quoting Famspear, quoting “an individual”,

.....I agree with Pete on his interpretation of what the law should be, but I agree with Larry Williams on what the law IS.....

......The CtC argument depends on the Constitution, Supreme Court (and lower) decisions, statutes, and statutory construction. Problem is, there is a branch of law that it completely misses, and for lack of a better term, I will call this the "Law of the Courts."
.......

......The "Law of the Courts" is REAL LAW.

THAT LAW requires the private ordinary citizen to pay income tax..........

The problem being, that “an individual”, like the Blowhardmeister, is still dead wrong.

The actual statement should be not that "The CtC argument depends on the Constitution, etc", but rather that if FAILS etc.

It is NOT the "Law of the Courts" at all that is making a liar out of his ill windedness, it is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the resulting tax law that it spawned that “requires the private ordinary citizen to pay income tax”, and the courts enforcing the laws as written. The "Law of the Courts" is upholding those laws, but it is not “making” those laws, and it is the absolute unwillingness of the Blowhardmeister and people like “an individual” who refuse to read and accept what is plainly in front of them that induces the pain they are suffering. I find little sympathy in people who refuse to accept the clear, simple and declarative sentence, “Fire will burn you”, and insist on finding some way of twisting the meaning until it means the opposite, and then are startled when they do in fact get burned, which is of course what the Blowhardmeister has been doing all along, and convincing people who wanted to be convinced that he was right and the rest of the universe is wrong.

[Famspear]

Pete Hendrickson has responded to the comment by "freeme" with this:

freeme, this is not an error. The book says "...the court acknowledges that...", not "...the court says that..." The language on page 24 is from the lower court ruling upheld (acknowledged) by the Supreme Court in its own decision. Language from that high court decision in this case making the same point (even more clearly, by the way) can be found on page i of the book.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 691b#18337

In this case, I'm not sure whether Pete is right or wrong, since I don't have his book and a copy of the lower court opinion handy to look at. Assuming the quote actually is in the opinion of the lower court, and to give Pete the benefit of the doubt, this might just be some ambiguity (or even carelessness) on Pete's part in the way the quote was presented in his book.

The more serious problem, of course, is that the material ultimately does not support Pete's proposition: that the private sector earnings of an individual in an activity not involving a federal privilege are not taxable.

[ASITStands]

In another thread where Pete was challenged, we see the following:

Further still, as is noted at http://losthorizons.com/tax/faq.htm#Frivolous , "That said, though, it is worth keeping in mind that a specific point-by-point correction of these efforts to mislead isn't actually necessary. It is enough to simply point out that unapportioned capitations are prohibited. ANY construction of the term "includes" (and any other term in which it is used, OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY ELEMENT AT ALL) which would suggest that an unapportioned capitation has been imposed is clearly and inarguably a misconstruction of the statute (otherwise the statute would be inherently invalid and void). No further analysis is really required. This is one of the "light bulb moment" perceptions important for those still struggling with their grasp of the overall "income" tax subject.

WESTON WAS WHRIGHT ABOUT CAPITATIONS!

... from Pete's point of view.