Hendrickson's Reply Brief

[Dr. Caligari]

http://www.losthorizons.com/PostAppellateReplyBrief.pdf

[Quixote]

I can't help thinking that his reliance on his fanciful interpretation of Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 is misplaced. I could be wrong, but I would guess that judges tend not to place great weight on the text of long since repealed statutes.

[Joey Smith]

Pete's brief wil draw a few chuckles from the judge's clerks, but not much more. The countdown to "affirmed" begins.

[Nikki]

The court finds that the appeal can be decided on the record and the briefs; the request for oral arguments is denied.

Appellant Hendrikson has failed to provide this court with anything more than a rehashing of the frivolous arguments and invective which were considered, ignored, and overruled by the lower court.

Since Hendrikson is proceeding pro se, the court will not hold his appeal to the same standards as it would if filed by an attorney. Thus, the court will not impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal. However, the court will entertain a motion by the United States for an award of reasonable attorney's fees.

Affirmed.

[Famspear]

You know that Blowhard Hendrickson is not going to have a good day when the Appeals Court decides this case when, at the beginning of his brief, he does not even correctly identify the elements of the cause of action that must be proven by the government. On page 2 of the brief, Hendrickson lists what he apparently believes are the section 7405 elements, as follows (paraphrasing and quoting only in part):

-----1. that the taxpayer received proceeds from conducting "taxable activities of some kind";

-----2. that tax liabilities for the relevant years have "actually been legally defined";

-----3. that the tax liabilities have not "been satisfied exclusive of the amounts returned" to the taxpayer.

Hey Blowhard, if you're out there, here's a clue: There is no requirement under the law that you have engaged in a "taxable activity" -- or indeed in any "activity" at all. Income is an EVENT. Some income events occur in connection with "activities" (such as working as an employee, operating a trade or business, rental activity and so on) and other income events occur even in the absence of an "activity." In your case, you were engaged in an activity (as an employee) -- but that's not an element of a section 7405 action.

Hey Blowhard Hendrickson: There is no legal requirement that a tax liability for the year be "legally defined" -- at least not in the sense I think you mean it. Saying that tax liability should be "legally defined" is a reasonable sounding statement -- but that does not make that statement "the law," and it definitely does not make it an element that the government must prove.

Now, here is a correct list of the elements that the government must prove in a section 7405 erroneous refund action:

-----1. that a refund of a sum certain was made;

-----2. that the government's recovery action is timely; and

-----3. that the taxpayer is not entitled to the refund.

-United States v. Foster, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,263 (E.D. Va. 2002), aff'd per curiam, 51 Fed. Appx. 915, 2002-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 50,801 (4th Cir. 2002).

Not that knowing any of this information would have helped you, Mr. Hendrickson. So sorry.

[Quixote]

Now, here is a correct list of the elements that the government must prove in a section 7405 erroneous refund action:

-----1. that a refund of a sum certain was made;

-----2. that the government's recovery action is timely; and

-----3. that the taxpayer is not entitled to the refund.

-United States v. Foster, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,263 (E.D. Va. 2002), aff'd per curiam, 51 Fed. Appx. 915, 2002-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 50,801 (4th Cir. 2002).

Mr. Hendrickson's reply, created in true tax dishonesty fashion by cutting and pasting an incomplete copy of a statement concerning something else entirely:

"No volume, or creative selection, of case citations -- regardless of their content, or what they may appear (or can be construed or tortured) to suggest or imply -- are relevant ..." Appelants' Reply Brief, pg 8.

[wserra]

Having just devoted to this "brief" the time it merits - about 30 seconds - one thing is clear. At this point Hendrickson isn't trying to win the appeal. Were he trying to do so, he would probably realize that, in characterizing the govt's position with such hyperbole as "corrupt", "a late-night law school dormitory bull session", he tars the DJ with the same brush, since she threw him out on his ass. That tarring alone, of course, would be sufficient reason for the Circuit to search the record for a reason to affirm - not that any such search is necessary here.

Hendrickson knows that the Sixth Circuit is next in line to unceremoniously show him the door. This is a last-ditch effort to extract money from the mentally challenged.

[.]

about 30 seconds

I quit at "rogue agency" (about 4, maybe 5 seconds into it) knowing that it would all be downhill from there.

My hat's off to you for your persistence.

[Investor]

If this appeal results in an overturned verdict, it will prove to the world that Hendrickson is dead on. If it results in affirmation, it proves that the system is corrupt and nobody can get a fair trial.

Sorry, I just wanted to see what it was like to blindly follow backward logic and double talk to ensure my position is proven to be correct no matter what the outcome. I have to tell you, I feel a little dumber for even feigning this sort of stupidity.

[Demosthenes]

I quit at "rogue agency"

Most TPs complain that it's a rouge agency.

[.]

Were those TPs in Louisiana?

No, wait, I'm sorry, they were just the usual bunch of semi/somewhat-functional illiterates.

Rachel, did you say something?

Never mind.

[ASITStands]

I can't help thinking that his reliance on his fanciful interpretation of Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 is misplaced. I could be wrong, but I would guess that judges tend not to place great weight on the text of long since repealed statutes.

Hendrickson claims section 93 was never overturned. He says nothing about amended or repealed, as far as I know.

It appears to me the entire 'Cracking the Code' theory hangs on this thread, "As long as I have made a determination of my liability, and submitted a return under penalties of perjury, no one can contradict my sworn testimony."

This point was discussed in one of the earlier threads. Of course, now that he's banished anyone who might contradict his view, no one dare suggest it.

The discussion of his reply brief is pathetic at this point. I'm waiting for someone to speak up.

[.]

his reply brief is pathetic

True. I say that in the best out-of-context spirit.

[Investor]

You people clearly aren't familiar with cheeze, and therefore cannot understand Hendrickson's brief. Please allow me to enlighten you by posting something from the LH forum:

I have read his complete reply. I found it excellent and on point.
He has covered every hole in the DOJ's chunk of swiss cheese!

This cheese will not melt in spite of the DOJ's constant declaration of it being 100% cheese! I will not eat this cheese, Pete will not eat this cheese and I do not see the appellant court eating this cheese!

It is moldy and outdated. It was moldy, when they first brought it to the party and it is still moldy! If, they cannot bring real cheese to this get-together, then they should not be throwing a party.

I believe the appellant court will come to the conclusion that the DOJ
never intended on throwing a party in the first place.

They did not provide any food or drinks, the only thing they brought was moldy cheese! They should hire a caterer to do their next party as they have no idea how to throw one!

Geeze! I thought this party was going to be fun, BORING!

There, now don't you feel silly for having torn into the brief without the proper cheeze background?

[Dezcad]

If, they cannot bring real cheese to this get-together, then they should not be throwing a party.

I believe the appellant court will come to the conclusion that the DOJ never intended on throwing a party in the first place.

They did not provide any food or drinks, the only thing they brought was moldy cheese! They should hire a caterer to do their next party as they have no idea how to throw one!

Geeze! I thought this party was going to be fun, BORING!

I'm pretty sure that it is something quite different than a party that the DOJ has planned for PH.

[.]

cheese

The other white-supremacist brief.

[LPC]

For me, the most important part of Hendrickson's argument is on page 4:

For instance, on page 30 of its brief Plaintiff declares that we "...never disputed that the amounts paid to them were to compensate them for services they performed... This sly, compound misrepresentation not only seeks to dance around the insufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence that "we received wages" and "self-employment income" (now Plaintiff speaks merely of "amounts paid"), but also suggests that we must not only dispute what Plaintiff actually DID allege in its complaint and motion for Summary Judgment. but dispute what it did not, or bear some burden of proving we DIDN'T receive "income" in order for Plaintiff to not be simply handed title to our property by the Court.

I think I can speak for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals when I say "What?!"

The only possible factual issue in the case would be whether or not Hendrickson received income. Hendrickson alludes to the issue, but instead of addressing it (or even addressing whether or not he has addressed it) he does a little philosophical tap dance and prances away without having said anything whatsoever of any relevance.

(At times like this, I kind of miss Schiff. He was crazy as a loon, but he least he was direct and understandable. He made clear, definite statements that allowed you to see exactly why he was wrong, and didn't hide behind cowardly, evasive bullshit masquerading as sophistry.)

But then, weirdly, on page 23, Hendrickson rants as follows:

In all its filings, where its huge staff has unquestionably taken its very best shot. Plaintiff has cited NOT ONE LAW requiring a 1040 filer to simply accept and adopt third-party information and NOT ONE LAW prohibiting a filer from disputing such information.

And yet, when given an opportunity to dispute third-party information, Hendrickson refuses to do so, as shown above.

[LPC]

I can't help thinking that his reliance on his fanciful interpretation of Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 is misplaced. I could be wrong, but I would guess that judges tend not to place great weight on the text of long since repealed statutes.

I don't think that the Revenue Act of 1862 was repealed. I think it expired according to its terms. (I.e., it was enacted with a limited term, much like much of the EGTRRA of 2001 will expire on 12/31/2010.)

But I find confusing is Hendrickson's claim that section 93 limits the jurisdiction of the court, when section 93 says nothing about jurisdiction.

As quoted by Hendrickson, section 93 says:

"And be it further enacted, ...that any party, in his or her own behalf, ...shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall he prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the amount of his or her annual income, ....liable to be assessed,... and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected." Section 93 of The Revenue Act of 1862 (Emphasis added)

Hendrickson then proceeds to state:

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a statute contradicting this explicit specification in order to even begin to overcome its other jurisdictional and evidentiary infirmities.

Even assuming that the statute was still in force, it says nothing about jurisdiction, and Hendrickson never explains how the jurisdiction granted to the courts by statutes that are actually in force is in any way contradicted by this obsolete statute.

[LPC]

It appears to me the entire 'Cracking the Code' theory hangs on this thread, "As long as I have made a determination of my liability, and submitted a return under penalties of perjury, no one can contradict my sworn testimony."

I agree.

On page 9 of his "brief," Hendrickson refers to "our sworn return testimony" as "pre-emptively dispositive as a matter of law."

[LPC]

The court finds that the appeal can be decided on the record and the briefs; the request for oral arguments is denied.

Appellant Hendrikson has failed to provide this court with anything more than a rehashing of the frivolous arguments and invective which were considered, ignored, and overruled by the lower court.

Since Hendrikson is proceeding pro se, the court will not hold his appeal to the same standards as it would if filed by an attorney. Thus, the court will not impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal. However, the court will entertain a motion by the United States for an award of reasonable attorney's fees.

Affirmed.

I agree that there will be no oral argument, but I think that the 6th Circuit opinion will be longer than that. I think (and hope) that the 6th Circuit will write a published opinion that squashes Hendrickson like a bug on the windshield of the law.

Specifically, the opinion (whether or not published) will specifically confirm that:

1. The District Court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the now-obsolete Revenue Act of 1862.

2. Hendrickson received a tax refund, and not a return of a "deposit."

3. The affidavit of the payroll manager for Personnel Management is competent evidence of Hendrickson's income.

4. Hendrickson failed to dispute the amounts of income reported by Personnel Management, and so failed to establish any issue of any material fact.

5. Section 3401(c) does not exclude from "wages" the compensation paid to common law employees in the private sector.

6. Work for pay in the private sector results in income subject to tax under section 61, regardless of whether or not the payments are "wages" within the meaning of section 3401, and claims to the contrary are frivolous.