Court finally rules in Hendrickson appellate case

[Famspear]

The Petermeister has twice edited his comments over at lost horizons. He's now saying he wants a rehearing en banc, and he's basically asking for help. Here is the latest edited version, with my bolding on the parts that I think were added (I haven't done a word-by-word comparison back to the original):

Gotta love this forum! I check in last night just to see what's buzzing, and get to learn of this three-judge panel having disgraced itself even before the corrupt gnat brought forth by its three-quarters-of-a-year of mighty straining pollutes my mailbox.

I'm not yet able to post a thoughtful comment about this "not for publication" effort to dodge every substantive issue in this case. But I applaud you all for your well-taken posts. As you have generally observed, this "ruling" is an exercise in dodge-and-weave, with what deliberately goes unaddressed, or is carefully presented with a reliance on the reader's adoption of convenient assumptions, being the real story here. That real story amounts to a complete affirmation of what CtC teaches about the law. As has been noted in my previous discussions of this "lawsuit":

"The fact is, as obnoxious as it has been to deal with (and apparently will continue to be, for a while yet), this "lawsuit" serves as a wonderful demonstration of the truth about the "income" tax which is revealed in CtC. This is because even in the narrow and focused venue of this case, where every government presentation is necessarily as deliberate, considered and definitive as it can be, the government simply cannot and will not dispute that truth.

"For instance, if ever there was a time to just say plain out that "Hendrickson says his earnings are not "wages", but that is wrong because all earnings are "wages"", this would be the time. And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings (to characterize their deliberately confusing complexity in the most charitable way possible)-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T declare that this is so.

"If ever there was a time to just say plain out that "Hendrickson says not everyone working for someone else is an "employee" within the meaning of that term in chapter 24 of the IRC, but that is wrong-- everyone working for someone else is an "employee" within the meaning of that term in chapter 24 of the IRC", this would be the time. And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T make that plain and frank declaration.

"If ever there was a time to say, "Hendrickson's wrong about the significance, effect, and utility of a tax return (and we have exercised our authority to change or override returns, and have determined that the Hendricksons have existing liabilities)", this would be the time. And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T make that plain and frank declaration.

"Instead, the government's ENTIRE "argument" is: "So-and-so (whoever typed up a couple of W-2s) says Hendrickson was an "employee", and that his earnings were "wages"". That's it." (From http://www.losthorizons.com/lawsuit.htm .)


I'll post more on this in the newsletter soon. In the meantime, I'd like to ask all of you to make a project here of analyzing and responding to this eyewash, in the context of the relevant briefs and petitions that will be made going forward. The arguments that the three-judge-panel purports to have addressed can be seen at http://www.losthorizons.com/PostBriefCombo.pdf , and it is the point-by-point failure to have done so that should be considered, on a point-by-point basis. The many issues raised in my briefs that the court doesn't address at all (other than by dodging them with sweeping disparagement) should very much be included.

There's a lot of highly-tuned brainpower in this group, and this is a nice opportunity to exercise it productively in a demonstration of the fact that while three political appointees may have offered their own preferred and self-serving take on all this, thousands of their superiors, who have closely studied the law, know better.

P. S. I also strongly encourage everyone-- and especially the lawyers-- to prepare and submit amicus briefs in support of an en banc rehearing. These will need to be submitted no later than mid-July, if I recall correctly.

Those able to do so should focus on all significant points in this contest and this ruling; everyone should at least be able to address the one matter of the lawless and pernicious proposition that an affiant can have testimony dictated to him or her (not to mention by a beneficiary of the dictated testimony). There is nothing that will be of greater impact on the court's subsequent behavior than a clear indicator that it's being watched by a large number of Americans who are not taken in by its pretenses.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... sc&start=0

[Famspear]

Peter Eric (Blowhard) Hendrickson wrote:

P. S. I also strongly encourage everyone-- and especially the lawyers-- to prepare and submit amicus briefs in support of an en banc rehearing. These will need to be submitted no later than mid-July, if I recall correctly.

Those able to do so should focus on all significant points in this contest and this ruling; everyone should at least be able to address the one matter of the lawless and pernicious proposition that an affiant can have testimony dictated to him or her (not to mention by a beneficiary of the dictated testimony). There is nothing that will be of greater impact on the court's subsequent behavior than a clear indicator that it's being watched by a large number of Americans who are not taken in by its pretenses.

Hey, Petsey-poo, I hate to be the one to break it to ya', but if any of your minions try to write and submit amicus briefs on what you call the "matter of the lawless and pernicious proposition that an affiant can have testimony dictated to him or her," there will be nothing of greater impact on the court's impression of you and your followers than this clear indicator that your followers are just as clueless as you are.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Hey, Petsey-poo, I hate to be the one to break it to ya', but if any of your minions try to write and submit amicus briefs on what you call the "matter of the lawless and pernicious proposition that an affiant can have testimony dictated to him or her," there will be nothing of greater impact on the court's impression of you and your followers than this clear indicator that your followers are just as clueless as you are.

Shhh!! You'll ruin a perfectly good train wreck!

[ASITStands]

Peter Eric (Blowhard) Hendrickson wrote:

P. S. I also strongly encourage everyone-- and especially the lawyers-- to prepare and submit amicus briefs in support of an en banc rehearing. These will need to be submitted no later than mid-July, if I recall correctly.

Those able to do so should focus on all significant points in this contest and this ruling; everyone should at least be able to address the one matter of the lawless and pernicious proposition that an affiant can have testimony dictated to him or her (not to mention by a beneficiary of the dictated testimony). There is nothing that will be of greater impact on the court's subsequent behavior than a clear indicator that it's being watched by a large number of Americans who are not taken in by its pretenses.

Sticking with his interpretation of Sec. 93 of the Act of 1862!

In other words, the amounts paid to me by my employer are not "wages" [because I say so and regardless of settled case law], and no one can force me to change my testimony.

It seems to me that's the bottom line of Hendrickson's theory.

[Quixote]

P. S. I also strongly encourage everyone-- and especially the lawyers ...

If Pete thinks there are lawyers who agree with him, why was he proceeding pro se?

[Famspear]

Uh-oh... Look at what user "DavidDiemer" has now posted at losthorizons (referring to Pete's loss at the Court of Appeals):

This is also a "win" for the Tax Honesty community. They've been saying that by filing, you needlessly expose yourself to this very kind of litigation. I suspect we're going to see lots of other sites looking at what happened to Pete to establish that their system is the correct way: don't file.

This may also embolden the IRS to look for more people submitting truthful claims according to the rule of law and attempt to do to them what they've done to Pete. Now, when I speak to others, they will only see that Pete has been convicted, been ordered to change his sworn testimony, and is a tax protester. They will not bother to research the merits or the law, either, but will instead continue to bury their heads in the sand.


WHERE'S THE LINK SO I CAN CONTRIBUTE TO PETE'S DEFENSE FUND?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... a6c08#5041

I wonder if Pete will delete this post.
(bolding and caps in the original)

Notice that DavidDiemer apparently thinks Peter Hendrickson's latest court loss has resulted in Hendrickson being "convicted". Hang on, Dave. Just hang on. And it's not nice to imply that Peter could somehow be wrong.

[Famspear]

DavidDiemer wrote, at losthorizons:

This is also a "win" for the Tax Honesty community. They've been saying that by filing, you needlessly expose yourself to this very kind of litigation. I suspect we're going to see lots of other sites looking at what happened to Pete to establish that their system is the correct way: don't file.

This [Peter Hendrickson's defeat at the Court of Appeals] may also embolden the IRS to look for more people submitting truthful claims according to the rule of law [i.e., may "embolden" the IRS to look for more Cracking the Code cranks] and attempt to do to them what they've done to Pete. Now, when I speak to others, they will only see that Pete has been convicted, been ordered to change his sworn testimony, and is a tax protester. They will not bother to research the merits or the law, either, but will instead continue to bury their heads in the sand.


WHERE'S THE LINK SO I CAN CONTRIBUTE TO PETE'S DEFENSE FUND?

I love it when tax protesters snipe at each other. The "Tax Honesty Movement" is, of course, in "DavidDiemer's" eyes, the deluded portion of the tax protester community, while Pete and his Cracking the Code crackpots are, in David's eyes apparently, the people who know the Ultimate Truth. Pete, for example, says you do have to file a return, while many other tax protesters insist you do not have to file. Still, David is doing Peter no service by making these kinds of comments on Pete's web site.

DavidDiemer is just as clueless in his own way as the rest of the crew over there. Internal Revenue Service personnel do not need to be "emboldened" to squash Pete's Crackheads. IRS people are perfectly capable of squashing the crackheads left and right, with or without any additional help from Hendrickson's repeated court defeats.

DavidDiemer and the rest of the Crackheads claim to really believe that IRS personnel are somehow quivering in their jackboots over Peter Hendrickson and his nonsense crapola.

This is so much fun!

[wserra]

I also strongly encourage everyone-- and especially the lawyers-- to prepare and submit amicus briefs in support of an en banc rehearing.

Ya know, I think that's a great idea. In fact, just to make sure that we're not misrepresenting his beliefs, we should use as many of Hendrickson's own words as possible. I'll start the brief:

Yo! Sixth Circuit! What is this thing that three of your corrupt gnats used to pollute Mr. Hendrickson's mailbox? Why, this obnoxious opinion dodges every substantive issue in this case. It's an exercise in dodge-and-weave, with the real story deliberately unaddressed. I mean, what kind of court dodges Mr. Hendrickson's issues with sweeping disparagement? After all, they were just three political appointees, and thousands of their superiors, who have closely studied the law, know better.

There. I think that's a good start towards helping Petey prevail in his battle for truth, justice and swag. Feel free to add to it, and we'll submit it as an amicus (perhaps under Bulten's name?) as a public service.

[notorial dissent]

.....
Hey, Petsey-poo, I hate to be the one to break it to ya', but if any of your minions try to write and submit amicus briefs on what you call the "matter of the lawless and pernicious proposition that an affiant can have testimony dictated to him or her," there will be nothing of greater impact on the court's impression of you and your followers than this clear indicator that your followers are just as clueless as you are.

Famspear, I too would have thought that would have been self evident to the learned justices, but a little confirmation never hurts now does it?

And I do think it is going to be such a lovely train wreck, I want to reserve tickets now before it is too late, or the criminal subpoenas get served.

It seems to me that's the bottom line of Hendrickson's theory.

At least he is a consistent idiot, wrong, but consistent. And just as wrong now as the day he started.

Seriously though, is there any likelihood that they would do an en banc for something like this? Of course, the possibility of someone being sufficiently ticked off and coming and calling him and his theories a pile of dung does have a certain naive charm all of its own. The old saying of be careful of what you wish for has a lot of merit, and Petey may find that getting what he wants may not be what he wants after all.

I have to admit, that I agree wholeheartedly with LPC, I think it was-my apologies if memory fails, who came out and said that they really wished the judges had come out and said that Pete’s theories were horse manure and that as a matter of law and fact he did receive wages, and did owe tax on same. And that they can order someone to change their "testimony" when it has been determined that the previous "testimony" was false.

One of the great failing that the legal community has is the insistence on trying to sound erudite when sometimes plain old Anglo Saxon would be more appropriate, and I particularly think that in cases like this they do need to come out and not only say that the sure fire theory du jour is a crock, but that the premises are a crock, and that the law specifically says otherwise. It may not be pretty, but it is clear and concise. This is part of the reason Pete and every other guru can get away with saying the nonsense they peddle is valid.

[Red Cedar PM]

Great thread. Unfortunately I have been out of town and unable to log-in.

Where the hell is JJB, SubVet, or Ducky? Does anyone over there have the stones to come back here and explain this one away?

The monkeys over there are just screeching, shaking the bars of the cages, and bouncing off the walls.

You forgot the feces throwing.

[Famspear]

Great thread. Unfortunately I have been out of town and unable to log-in.

Where the hell is JJB, SubVet, or Ducky? Does anyone over there have the stones to come back here and explain this one away?

Ducky was the only one with the gumption to hang around and debate with us. He eventually withdrew with what was, in my personal opinion, a graceful and honorable exit on his part -- which is more than I can say for certain others. SubVet entered with a bang but then just disappeared -- after he got a lot of real law thrown at him and apparently didn't really know quite what to do about it.

[notorial dissent]

And really really hard trying to say that up is really down and that Pete didn’t get his ass handed back to him on a platter, and just maybe to convince themselves that they aren’t next.

[grixit]

Duck Season is over, now it's Rabbit Season.

[Joey Smith]

And really really hard trying to say that up is really down and that Pete didn’t get his ass handed back to him on a platter, and just maybe to convince themselves that they aren’t next.

That is exactly what is happening. If this were football, Pete got clobbered 72-0 but his followers are in denial that the Titantic (1) has hit an iceberg that ripped an enormous hole in the side of CtC through which seawater is rushing in; and (2) is sinking very quickly now.

I presume that the DOJ will hit Pete with an injunction action very quickly now, and with this Circuit Court's opinion and statements they will go through Pete's defenses like a hot knife through melted butter.

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] If this were football, Pete got clobbered 72-0 but his followers are in denial that the Titantic (1) has hit an iceberg that ripped an enormous hole in the side of CtC through which seawater is rushing in; and (2) is sinking very quickly now.

Pontificating Pete's position on that would be that the iceberg (that is, the tax law) didn't rip that enormous hole in just the right way -- which somehow "proves" to Pontificating Pete and his Preposterously Pinheaded Patriots that the Titanic (which is the book Cracking the Code) is perfectly seaworthy, even as the water rushes in, and that somehow it is the "poor iceberg" that is desperately bobbing and weaving in a vain attempt to avoid sinking. In Pete's world, the Titanic is sinking the iceberg.

[Lambkin]

Looking at the LH thread, I am impressed by the relatively small number of frothy posts. It has been a few days, everybody knows what has happened, and I think a good number of the regulars over there understand that the goose is cooked and they don't have much to say. That doesn't mean they have wised up - they are probably already sulkily surfing the net looking for another de-tax PNJ guru to confirm that fraud is legal and righteous.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...The many issues raised in my briefs that the court doesn't address at all (other than by dodging them with sweeping disparagement) should very much be included....

Trying to address an appellant's claims that blue is green and yellow is red isn't necessary when the appellant is demonstrably color blind.

[Joey Smith]

The history of tax protestors is that as a promoter goes down, a small handful will attempt to give him last-stand support, while the vast majority simply conclude "Yep, that didn't work, but I always had my doubts ya know", and move off to their next guru.

Pete will see his support melt away in the coming months, not that it would have helped him in any way. By the time Pete and Doreen go to prison for tax fraud, they won't even have any supporters who will call them in prison on anything like a regular basis.

[webhick]

...The many issues raised in my briefs that the court doesn't address at all (other than by dodging them with sweeping disparagement) should very much be included....

Trying to address an appellant's claims that blue is green and yellow is red isn't necessary when the appellant is demonstrably color blind.

I liken it to arguing with a drunk.

[Nikki]

Bad analogy.

Tomorrow, the drunk will be sober.