ASITStands wrote:Hendrickson actually discussed the motion in last week's newsletter, but all he alleged was the government wanted the memorandum dismissed.
Aha! That would explain it. Hendrickson's 24 page brief had two "Memoranda of Law" attached, one 32 pages long and other 22 pages long, and it appears that those were what the government moved to strike (and with good reason, I may add, since those attachments blew the 15 page limit right out of the water.)
Which really is just more of the same old crap, together with histrionic hand-waving, that barely addresses the merits of whether the memordanda should be stricken. (He doesn't even cite the rules of appellate procedure until page 17.)
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.
Aside from all the twisted logic in regard to statutes and definitions, the reason appears also to be:
Yet its motion denounces our memoranda for raising issues "not responsive to [the IRS] brief."
That appears on page 15 of the response.
So, over-length and not responsive to the brief. Makes sense.
By the way, I hope the Court takes some time to respond to his assertions, so as to put them to rest, instead of just citing precedent. I'd like to see some of the issues addressed in detail.
I'd like to see some of the issues addressed in detail.
Which ones, his belief that the IRC of 1986 must be interpreted in light of Section 93 of the Tax Act of 1862, or that "wages" means only payment for services performed in Puerto Rico? Has he raised any point that can not be refuted by citing his own sources back at him after replacing the excised portions?
"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
I'd like to see some of the issues addressed in detail.
Which ones, his belief that the IRC of 1986 must be interpreted in light of Section 93 of the Tax Act of 1862, or that "wages" means only payment for services performed in Puerto Rico? Has he raised any point that can not be refuted by citing his own sources back at him after replacing the excised portions?
I'd think a good discussion of "includes" would destroy most of it.
Nikki wrote:His motion/brief/blather in opposition to being stricken specifically addresses the "custom-defined term 'includes'" on page 4.
That's where I stopped reading.
Yeah. I felt the same way. I did a double-take when he started citing IRC 3121 and skipped over relevant portions. I actually pulled up the section to check it out.
It's mind-boggling to read his stuff sometimes, but I'd think a good, old-fashioned whipping from the judges would stop him in his tracks and stop his followers from claiming he didn't get justice in the court.
I agree with Dan. It might have been best to have left the brief and memoranda in tact, so he can't claim procedural error. Why give him an argument coming out of court?
The LH forum is gone, even though the server is working.
Too much truth?
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.
Let's see, he read a clear order and decides that it dismissed his silly addendums instead of his entire late, overlength, moronic response brief.
Perhaps reality has finally set in and he has voluntarily dismissed himself and his idiotic site's content and is checking out discount airfares to countries without extradition treaties with the U.S.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
The LH forum is gone, even though the server is working.
Too much truth?
Yes, with Hendrickson sensing his own impending doom, he might have decided to delete the losthorizons forum so that he doesn't have to read the reactions of his followers when he loses the appeal.
LPC wrote:The LH forum is gone, even though the server is working.
It's back up now, and this message was posted yesterday:
admin wrote:I'm going to be upgrading my server over the next few days. Some brief forum downtime is likely. If you come to visit and get a 404 error, please be patient and try again after a while, or check the newsletter for information.
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.
I'm going to be upgrading my server over the next few days. Some brief forum downtime is likely. If you come to visit and get a 404 error, please be patient and try again after a while, or check the newsletter for information.
Whew! Just temporary! I thought I might be losing one of my main sources of entertainment.
Isn’t that more likely Hendricksonese for I need to get my lies straightened out and bury some more of those inconvenient little truths that keep popping up?
I'd think a good discussion of "includes" would destroy most of it.
No, it wouldn't. Hendrickson knows what "includes" means. His "includes" argument starts with the assumption that the word "includes" used in the IRC is not the English word "includes", but rather a Congressional neologism designed to confuse the general public. No argument will convince him that there are no invisible inaudible, intangible fairies in his garden.
"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
However, as you can see, all previous posts have been conveniently deleted.
By the way, it appears the user database has not been kept, meaning, anyone wishing to post will have to register. Is this an opportunity for those who've been banned? Time will only tell.
Looks like they switched to phpBB. They were using an ASP based board before. This explains why the posts and users are gone. They probably can't be transported to the new system.
I just registered a user called "test" with a bogus email address just to see what kind of activation he had turned on. Once the spambots catch on to the fact that he's using a phpBB forum, he's going to be inundated with bogus registrations. Also, the users are not user activated (meaning that you have to click a link in an email sent to your registered address to start using your username) - they are administrator activated. This means that he has to approve every single user that signs up before they can start posting. He'll most likely be checking all new users against the old user database.
The nice part about the switchover is that I won't have to keep turning up the font on my browser just to read the messages. Oh, and the board will be faster for searching and reading.
