Dude, you ARE desperate!
The case is United States v. Gregory P. Boyd, case no. 1:13-cr-00133 SS, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin.
Result?
On Thursday, November 21, 2013, Mr. Boyd was found guilty by the jury on all three felony counts of filing false federal income tax returns under Internal Revenue Code section 7206.
But, let's let Blowhard Hendrickson Himself tell the story (from the newsletter at Hendrickson's losthorizons web site):
fromThree Wasted Days In Austin
[ . . . ]
IT'S A THIN (AND LATE) NEWSLETTER THIS WEEK, I'M AFRAID... I spent most of this week in Austin, Texas, where I had been asked to testify as an "expert witness" in the trial of a fellow named Greg Boyd on charges of filing false returns concerning 2004, 2005 and 2006.
It was a rather shabby and depressing affair. At one time, it seems Boyd had professed to be a CtC-educated American. At least, when he was indicted this past April, he sent me a letter, proving that at that point, anyway, he knew who I was.
However, when I asked him to send me scans of the returns to which the charges related, Boyd didn't do so. Instead, he sent me docs related to later years (for which no charges were filed) which certainly appear meant to have been CtC-educated filings (but in which 4852s were deployed as rebuttals to 1099-MISC allegations...).
Needless to say, there may be more dramatic issues with the filings for which Boyd was charged, and which he has still never shown me. They may involve not even a hint of CtC-related understanding, and Boyd's reluctance to present them makes me suspect this is true.
In any case, it appears that Boyd had a lot of quirky history on the tax subject, both as a non-filer and otherwise. This history, with which I have just become somewhat familiar based on filings in the case, extended back many years prior to the filings over which he was charged, all of which were done at the same time in late 2007, by the way.
Most significantly, though, when faced with challenges to the sincerity of his beliefs about what is taxed under the law, Boyd repudiated his return testimony. Rather than defend his reasons for filing these not-really-CtC-educated returns, whatever they may really have been, Boyd has now declared himself to have simply acted on a "good-faith misunderstanding". It's hard to imagine why that should be taken seriously in light of the admitted inconsistency, and his history...
EVEN THOUGH MOST OF WHAT I HAVE JUST RELATED was not known to me beforehand, I was not enthused about testifying in this case. The request was made to me giving me no time to apprise myself of what the case was really about, and what little I did know was just that Boyd had made some filings for later years than those charged which reflected misunderstandings of CtC (suggesting the same flaws, at least, in those involved in the charges).
A mere couple of weeks before Boyd's trial, his attorney wrote me out of the blue, introduced herself, and asked if I would testify. She claimed that in a mock-jury test-run of the defense, the jury had found particularly significant-- and particularly favorable to the defense-- what Boyd explained about the history and actual effect of the 16th Amendment:
I couldn't even begin to pay attention to this at the time, being fully-consumed then and for the next week with Doreen's trial.Dear Mr. Hendrickson,
My name is Rain Minns. I am the attorney defending Gregory Boyd in his criminal tax case in Austin, starting November 18th.
Since you are the author of Cracking the Code, I believe that you are the best person on this earth to explain it. When we had a mock jury, the mock jurors specifically asked for a copy of the 16th Amendment and for us to provide more explanation about your book. One of our mock jurors even said that with eight printings of the book, there had to be something that really spoke to people. She wanted to learn more.
When I WAS able to respond to this request, time was even shorter, and no more information was forthcoming to give me reassurances about the virtue of the defense being mounted, despite my requests. Still, I was told I was wanted to give expert testimony on the 16th amendment and related subjects, something I would be willing to do in any proceeding if the court would allow it, even one involving a non-CtC-educated defendant, and even one in which the defendant had decided to impeach his own past testimony. The truth is the truth, and I'll tell it wherever it is relevant, letting those whose conclusions seem to depend on what's at stake for them personally fend for themselves against the ramifications thereof.
So, I indicated that I would be willing. Shortly afterward, I was told that despite not one but five government motions to prevent it, I had been admitted by the court to testify as an expert witness, and a flight to Austin had been booked for me.
However, on arrival in Texas no effort was made to discuss my anticipated testimony. The excuse given was that with trial underway there simply was no time to set aside for that. Once I was on the stand, no such testimony was sought.
Afterward, I was told that this was due to the judge having belatedly decided such testimony would not be allowed. Maybe so-- I don't know. In any event, all I was really asked to do was make clear to the jury that CtC was very widely read; verify a couple of emails I had exchanged with Boyd after he was indicted; and identify something he had sent to the IRS in response to a "frivolous" threat-letter as containing content that might have been copied from something posted on this site.
As I said, a shabby and depressing affair. An odd one, too, in that despite what I have discovered about the "defense strategy" after the fact, while I was in Austin, Boyd and friends of his on hand to act as character witnesses seemed to believe that I really had been asked to come in order to explain to the jury why his charged returns really WERE correct (or might have been, anyway-- I still don't know just what it is that Boyd was paid for during the years at issue, and so can't say whether what I assume were his reported conclusions of no "income" for those years might have been sound or not).
As it happens, Greg was found guilty after a few hours of jury deliberation. I think he would have fared better had he rested his defense on the truth about the tax. The practical outcome might well have been different (and couldn't have been worse), and the spiritual outcome would surely have been better.
HERE'S THE OTHER THING I THINK CAN BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THIS STORY: Government assaults concerning CtC educated filings-- such as the one on me in 2009 and even the one on Greg Boyd's filings, which, while likely not really very CtC educated, were nonetheless apparently denials of having received "income", with a probably-plain intention of rebutting information-return allegations to the contrary-- are revealingly confined to "belief" charges. In my case the jury was instructed to disregard the fact that the government made no effort to prove I owed any tax. I believe the same would have been true in Boyd's case had he not spared the government even the possibility of any such burden by declaring himself to be liable. In both cases the government revealingly declined to attempt any charge such as "evasion", in which liability must be proven.
Indeed, the only time an actual allegation of a tax owed contrary to the filer's educated returns was made where the matter might have theoretically had to be proven to a jury was the "civil lawsuit" against my wife and me in 2006, but even there our demand for a jury trial was simply ignored without comment by the district court, which instead just issued summary judgment for the government based on an unprecedented order that we remove our educated returns from the record and replace them with testimony dictated by, and serving the interests of, the government. That is, the only apparent exception to the never-challenge-what-an-educated-filer-actually-said-in-front-of-a-jury rule was no real exception at all. Just as in the other assaults, the government dodged the educated returns-- in this case by trying to (forgive me) excise them.
THE SECOND TAKE-AWAY, THEN, is recognition of the significance that the very best the government dares try to prove in even its most dramatic efforts to discourage CtC -educated filings is the ever-more dilapidated contention that, "Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so can't possibly believe that his or her earnings aren't "income taxable", ladies and gentlemen, after all, who could believe such a wild idea!" (the subtext to which is, "Please pay no attention to our refusal to dispute what they say, of course... and to our continuous honoring of returns just like the ones we say no one could believe are true and correct... and for God's sake, please don't read CtC or The Fascinating Truth About the Sixteenth Amendment. You could get infected with this seditious, Leviathan-constraining belief just like we are and THEN what would happen? Why, we'd have to go look for honest work, like you mundanes have to do...")
Just as CtC points out, where the tax doesn't really apply as an objective fact, it is solely the filer's beliefs (and expression thereof in a legally-meaningful manner) that matters, and because this is so, the revenue-hungry government will strive mightily to suppress and discourage any expression of belief inconvenient to its wallet. At bottom, CtC-related assaults are speech assaults, because the state can't have its lawless way with your money when you stand up and speak your honest mind.
http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm
