No, this does not suggest any such thing. Your statement indicates you are not being rational. You are approaching the matter from your conclusion that you and Hendrickson are correct, and that 100% of the judges who have ruled on these tax protester issues are not only wrong but are 'fearful", that they are being unduly "influenced," and that they are not "impartial." That is simply not rational.lorne wrote:And if the judge ruled the tax does NOT reach non-federally-privileged workers, then that is the law. This suggests that if a TP had an impartial adjudicator, one who hadn't taken the federal seminar in how to handle "tax protester" cases and avoid reversal error, a judge who could read & think for him/herself, without fear or influence, and write their own decisions — then we might get a decision upholding the rule of law.
Your phrase -- "then we might get a decision upholding the rule of law" -- is typical whiny Hendricksonesque rhetoric.
No. Hendrickson is wrong, and Harvester is wrong. People like Harvester and Hendrickson and lorne illustrate the point that the human capacity for self-deception is very great.Harvester wrote:Hendrickson is right. The human capacity for deception is very great. As a group, Quatlosers illustrate this point, as do those who believe a lie repeated loud and long enough will eventually be believed.
Harvester, after all this time, you are still spouting your own infantile nonsense. YOU are the one who is believing the lies -- repeated loudly and often by Hendrickson and his other followers -- including the lie that your "private sector", "non-federal privilege"-related compensation is not taxable to you.
Your actual belief in the lie, however, does not qualify as an actual good faith belief. Your belief is not based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law. Your belief is based on (among other things) your stubborn refusal to accept courts' interpretations of the law. And, as the courts have pointed out, the refusal to accept court interpretations of the law is evidence of willfulness -- the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
The key is not whether you actually believe that your legal duty (to pay federal income tax on your private sector, non-federally privileged earnings) is a duty. (That kind of actual belief is not quite enough for a valid defense in a federal criminal tax case.)
Instead, the key might be whether you are AWARE that the courts have ruled that it is a legal duty. And you clearly are aware of that -- as is "lorne", and as was Peter Hendrickson. Your actual belief is really a disagreement with the courts' interpretation of the law.
In short, a jury could conclude -- just as the jury did with Peter Hendrickson -- that your actual belief is not an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.
No Cheek defense!