LH Forum rule changes

[natty]

So he's going the obfuscation route, arguing about burdens of proof and evidence and presumptions and all sorts of other crap, hoping to confuse the court enough not to notice that he has failed to make a single factual assertion or a single legal argument.

Hendrickson, like all activists in the no-tax cult, is playing lawyer. The practice of law is not about the truth. It is about winning and arguing until the money runs out. A pro se has the benefit of arguing until he has "taken it to the highest court in the land". That is why logic and pragmatism are rare in the practice of law.

A problem arises when some confuse advocacy with truth. That is why the no-tax cult hide behind the label of "patriots" or "truthseekers" and lawyers who should know better, like Becraft, Cryer, or Riviera, continue to argue such insane positions.

[natty]

The practice of law is not about the truth. It is about winning and arguing until the money runs out.

That practice could be deemed unethical and a potential violation on the canons of the ABA.

hahahaha...Please explain why every attorney whose client is found guilty doesn't go to jail along with his/her client, or why every attorney on the losing side doesn't refund his/her fees, etc.

Do you believe O.J.'s defense team cared if he was really innocent or guilty? For that matter, did the prosecution team care? The truth is immaterial to an attorney properly representing his/her client.

[notorial dissent]

Calling all this bilge by Hendrickson a legal brief doesn't make it one.

Anymore than, to quote the blowhard, "calling a tail a leg, makes it one", and it definitely looks like he is going for the bewilder them with blather option, since the brilliance that is Pete is a spent candle. As someone already pointed out, he thinks if he says it often enough it will become true, it won’t of course, and the penalties will mount.

I can already hear the no oral arguments are necessary comment coming. The only real question will be how much of a penalty for frivolous appeal this time around.

[jg]

I can already hear the no oral arguments are necessary comment coming. The only real question will be how much of a penalty for frivolous appeal this time around.[/b][/color]

A footnote from the government's brief in the appeal:

10 Taxpayers audaciously contend (Br. 21-22) that these cases are inapposite because the Government and the District Court have cited only to dicta or to out-of-context quotations. That assertion is, in and of itself, frivolous. Because they insist on taking frivolous positions on appeal, we are filing contemporaneously with this brief, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, a separate motion for imposition of $8,000 in sanctions against taxpayers for prosecuting this frivolous appeal. We suggest therein that the motion be carried with the case and decided by the panel at the same time as it disposes of the merits.

[LPC]

The practice of law is not about the truth. It is about winning and arguing until the money runs out.

That practice could be deemed unethical and a potential violation on the canons of the ABA.

Yes, if the lawyer is "running the clock" without the knowledge or consent of the client.

If a case is very important to the client, and the client says "do everything you can, I don't care how much it costs," then raising every possible non-frivolous issue is zealous representation and not unethical. In that kind of case, the lawyer might actually keep going until the money runs out. (However, the lawyer must still present only meritorious legal and factual issues, and cannot deliberately delay proceedings. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 3.2.)

But those kinds of cases are very rare. Most clients have some kind of budget in mind, and for a lawyer to expect to be paid a fee for spending time on something that the lawyer knows is not likely to succeed and so worthless to the client would be a violation of ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.05. In particular, note section (a)(4), which refers to "the amount involved and the results obtained" as a factor to consider in deciding whether a fee is unreasonable.

(The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct have been adopted by nearly every state, replacing the "canons of ethics" that were previously in force.)

[LPC]

The practice of law is not about the truth.

If you're suggesting that it's all right for lawyers to lie, you're wrong. Under ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a), a lawyer must not knowingly:

"(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

"(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

"(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false."

In my experience, lawyers take these rules seriously. (I myself have disclosed adverse authority to a court, as required by Rule 3.2(a)(2), when opposing counsel failed to find the authority.)

[Imalawman]

The practice of law is not about the truth.

If you mean that its not like hollywood portrays it, I would agree. Most murder cases are about going from Man 1 to Man 3 or something like that - not a dramatic guilty or not-guilty. But to say that the truth isn't important, is not accurate of the legal profession that I'm a part of in my state. As a gov't lawyer I don't litigate cases that I think are wrong, rather I want to know the truth before I start litigating. If it comes out that I'm wrong, well, I don't pursue the case. If its doubtful, I'll settle (sometimes).

Are you an attorney? Just curious what you meant by that comment.

[Disilloosianed]

For those of us in the public sector, the idea that law is about running the money out is nonsensical.

1. The money doesn't run out on my client's side. I just don't get any of it, outside of a set wage, that stays the same whether I march or fight, win or lose.

2. Running the money out on the opponent's side is pointless. The state collects no tax if the taxpayer ultimately goes broke.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

And contrary to popular media, these legal systems have been operating for millenia (expecially tax courts). Charlemange needed teams of lawyers to argue laws and negotiate tax agreements with powerful nobles who had all types of arguments for not paying the full amount of taxes.

You see Clovis II signed an agreement with a former duke requiring that for estates over ______ we equip and supply 17 knights, but our estates are poor, we are not sure what a "long cubit is" and the word "required" could mean so many things, plus crop production would be hurt if we provided you with __(insert tax amount)___, by our figures we only owe __(insert lower tax amount)___

In today's world, ExxonMobile and ATT can still argue with the IRS and work out arrangements. However, little serf Ed and Elanie do not have the resources to hire top-grade lawyers to challenge Charlemange. However, it must be remebered that these nobles were not trying to evade all of thier taxes using frivoluos arguments. They still had to pay taxes (in one form or another) or face a siege complete with Black Knight Ops!

[wserra]

Charlemange needed teams of lawyers

Maybe so. But, more than anything else, Charlemange needed a knife and fork.

[wserra]

The truth is immaterial to an attorney properly representing his/her client.

Oversimplified to the point of falsehood.

[grixit]

Charlemange needed teams of lawyers

Maybe so. But, more than anything else, Charlemange needed a knife and fork.

Don't forget his great contribution to the sovereignty movement. Before his scribes invented lower case letters, everybody was a corporate fiction.

[Quixote]

Charlemange needed teams of lawyers

Maybe so. But, more than anything else, Charlemange needed a knife and fork.

Not to mention a dermatologist. Them mites itch.

[LPC]

As for the O.J. example, the first action by an attorney in a criminal case is NOT determining if your client is guilty or innocent, but what the facts of the case are.

Minor quibble, but I think that lawyers look at *evidence,* and not "facts."

Facts are what are found by the judge (or jury) in the face of conflicting evidence. So lawyers look at the evidence and try to figure out the best approach to getting the best result for the client and, if the matter goes to court, the best way to convince the trier of fact that the client's view of the evidence is the better view of the evidence.

When I was in high school, my history teacher said that the study of history is trying to find the best explanation for what has survived. Similary, one of the jobs of lawyers is to find the best explanation for the evidence we have.

[natty]

The truth is immaterial to an attorney properly representing his/her client.

Oversimplified to the point of falsehood.

All, from the response I have gotten to my post, it appears many are out of touch with the American legal system. Perhaps my use of "playing lawyer" could have been better said by the American legal system is adversarial. Govt lawyers only wish that it were inquisitorial.

Anyway, to LPC, Hendrickson "obfuscates". But Hendrickson, like all no-tax cultists, believes he is just arguing the other side of the debate in our adversarial legal system. Hendrickson's problem is that he believes his side is the "truth". That is why he believes if he just changes the words around in his argument, he will get a better result. Or, he believes his argument is not understood by the courts or misrepresented. That is so because to him, he is arguing the "truth".

As I said before, in the practice of law in the adversarial system, the truth is immaterial. The jury or court are the truthseeker and will "find" the facts and/or the law. But is what they find really the truth?

[natty]

The practice of law is not about the truth.

If you're suggesting that it's all right for lawyers to lie, you're wrong.

It is never all right for lawyers to lie. That is why lawyers don't lie. They may have been mistaken, but they never lie.

[natty]

Minor quibble, but I think that lawyers look at *evidence,* and not "facts."

Facts are what are found by the judge (or jury) in the face of conflicting evidence. So lawyers look at the evidence and try to figure out the best approach to getting the best result for the client and, if the matter goes to court, the best way to convince the trier of fact that the client's view of the evidence is the better view of the evidence.

When I was in high school, my history teacher said that the study of history is trying to find the best explanation for what has survived. Similary, one of the jobs of lawyers is to find the best explanation for the evidence we have.

It is hardly a "minor quibble". It is the foundation of the adversarial system. You sound more like a mediator than a litigator.