Court finally rules in Hendrickson appellate case

[jg]

The usual answer as to why the court did not respond in more detail then to label the arguments as frivolous (aka worthless or meritless) is:

We do not address petitioner's frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and copious citations to precedent, as to do so might suggest that these arguments possess some degree of colorable merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

[Investor]

The usual answer as to why the court did not respond in more detail then to label the arguments as frivolous (aka worthless or meritless) is:

We do not address petitioner's frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and copious citations to precedent, as to do so might suggest that these arguments possess some degree of colorable merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

Sounds like a coverup on the level of the Colonel's secret recipe. Make now doubt about it, there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows. This Petavirate is made up of The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went teets up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh".

[Demosthenes]

Maybe TPs don't know that "frivolous" is polite judge speak for "really really stupid."

[Joey Smith]

The LostHeads just can't get their little minds around the FACT that Pete's argument is so bad/worthless that it is not even worth the waste of the court's paper to discuss it.

The attitude that his sheeple followers have is the same as the sheeple of Lynn Meredith, Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, etc., etc., etc., and doubtless next year we will see the very same retards following some new paytriot guru and talking about how Pete's theory was "obviously flawed" to begin with.

[Famspear]

In another thread somewhere here recently, we were talking about our motivations -- why we like to post here, and why we enjoy reading the comments of others in this forum, and so on. It is at times like this that I'm reminded that the motivation can be easy to understand:

It's fun to see the bad guys get nailed.

[Famspear]

In another thread somewhere here recently, we were talking about our motivations -- why we like to post here, and why we enjoy reading the comments of others in this forum, and so on. It is at times like this that I'm reminded that the motivation can be easy to understand:

It's fun to see the bad guys get nailed.

Speaking of which, he has now replied in his forum:

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."


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.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5007#5007

(bolding added)

[Famspear]

Peter E. Hendrickson wrote:

I'll post more on this in the newsletter soon. In the meantime, I'd like to ask all of you [losthorizons forum regulars] 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

(bolding added)

More briefs and petitions? Oh boy, oh boy! You gonna petition the Sixth Circuit for a rehearing? Gonna petition the Supremes?

Need help from your minions in drafting still more papers? Or, are you just trying to keep them distracted with a meaningless, impotent analysis, while you ponder your situation? Petey, have you told your minions what position you are taking on your own 2007 federal income tax return? Using Cracking the Code again? Have you filed your return? Petey, do you think you'll try to continue running this scam if you end up in prison?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Investor]

Petey, have you told your minions what position you are taking on your own 2007 federal income tax return? Using Cracking the Code again? Have you filed your return? Petey, do you think you'll try to continue running this scam if you end up in prison?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Interesting point, Famspear. I'd imagine a PA having a very easy time destroying a Cheek defense relative to a return filed after a trial court and appeals court both informed you that your "theory" is incorrect.

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

****

"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.

In a way, I agree with Hendrickson here. I wish the court had explicitly dealt with his contentions, if only to shake up his followers more than they are already.

[webhick]

Has anyone noticed that the ruling hit just in time for Friday the 13th?

[grammarian44]

I'd like to ask all of you [losthorizons forum regulars] 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.

If Pete thinks the 6th Circuit failed to address his arguments, then imagine what he will say when the only response he receives "going forward" is "cert. denied."

[Investor]

If Pete thinks the 6th Circuit failed to address his arguments, then imagine what he will say when the only response he receives "going forward" is "cert. denied."

Ooh, Ooh...can I answer? His reaction, predictably, will be:

"This is proof that the SCOTUS is scared to address the issues raised by CtC, which is further proof that we are right, and that there is a grand scheme to cover this up."

Am I close, ya think?

[grammarian44]

Right on the money.

And that's why the only way to put a stop to the CtC fiasco is to jail Pete. It will happen sooner or later. It won't persuade his minions that he was wrong, but it will make most of them shut up.

[ASITStands]

Right on the money.

And that's why the only way to put a stop to the CtC fiasco is to jail Pete. It will happen sooner or later. It won't persuade his minions that he was wrong, but it will make most of them shut up.

I agree with the Doctor, I'd have liked to see the courts address the issues.

However, an injunctive action against the forum would do wonders!

[Duke2Earl]

The problem is simple. What we have is a failure to understand something very, very basic. Law is not some amorphous concept. Law is what the courts say it is. The courts say wages are subject to the income tax. That's it... that's all there is. End of story.... game, set and match. You can argue all you want, quote anything you want, play any games you want... it simply does not matter. You can cry about how it isn't fair, how it isn't constitutional, how you don't read it that way.... that doesn't matter either.

The failure to understand or accept reality does not change reality.

[Dr. Caligari]

Someone at LostHopes is starting to get an inkling:

Is my understanding correct that all private and public corporations are subject to the same 'income' statutes as us individuals ?

If so, then why are these corporations paying an 'income' tax to which most of them are no more liable than we are ?

Corporations have the funds and attorneys to uphold their rights and stand up to an irs onslaught , so are any of them doing so ?

What am I missing here?

[Quixote]

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.

****

"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.

In a way, I agree with Hendrickson here. I wish the court had explicitly dealt with his contentions, if only to shake up his followers more than they are already.

The contentions mentioned above are irrelevant. Hendrickson's income tax liability would be the same if his income was from wages or non-wages. As others have noted, any discussion of chapter 24 is pointless absent some connection between it and section 61. To the best of my knowledge, not even PH has ever tried to make one.

[Investor]

Someone at LostHopes is starting to get an inkling:

Is my understanding correct that all private and public corporations are subject to the same 'income' statutes as us individuals ?

If so, then why are these corporations paying an 'income' tax to which most of them are no more liable than we are ?

Corporations have the funds and attorneys to uphold their rights and stand up to an irs onslaught , so are any of them doing so ?

What am I missing here?

Wow, that's the kind of crazy talk that'll get you banned from LH. I'm sure the myth will now surface over at LH that corporations don't pay taxes. In the alternative, I'm sure that corporations get such large kickbacks from the government, that they are more than willing to pay the tax to continue the perpetration of the fraud. I've clearly been listening to TP talk for too many years...

[LPC]

Maybe TPs don't know that "frivolous" is polite judge speak for "really really stupid."

No, they really don't, which is one reason I try to explain the word "frivolous" in my FAQ:

[W]hen a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. It doesn’t mean that the case wasn’t well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were “wrong.” The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.

Too subtle?

Some years ago, I ran into a reaction like we're seeing on LH now, where the person thought it was remarkable that the judge never ruled on the "merits" of the argument. I said that the judge had ruled on the merits, and the other person disagreed, and we went back and forth for awhile, because it took me awhile to realize that this particular idiot didn't realize that calling an argument frivolous *WAS* a ruling on the merits.

And that's what we're seeing at LH now. They hear the word "frivolous" from the IRS and the courts all the time, and they don't understand (and can't believe) that it's a complete repudiation of everything they believe.

[Quixote]

Someone at LostHopes is starting to get an inkling:

Is my understanding correct that all private and public corporations are subject to the same 'income' statutes as us individuals ?

If so, then why are these corporations paying an 'income' tax to which most of them are no more liable than we are ?

Corporations have the funds and attorneys to uphold their rights and stand up to an irs onslaught , so are any of them doing so ?

What am I missing here?

Wow, that's the kind of crazy talk that'll get you banned from LH. I'm sure the myth will now surface over at LH that corporations don't pay taxes. In the alternative, I'm sure that corporations get such large kickbacks from the government, that they are more than willing to pay the tax to continue the perpetration of the fraud. I've clearly been listening to TP talk for too many years...

Close, but no cigar. That imminent legal scholar richard614 explains:

This is due to the fact that the major corporations have had the tax code written just for them by their congressional buddies. Where do you think these political hacks end up, after their public dis-service? Could it be on some corporate board or maybe a CEO? Halliburton has screwed the government and the taxpayer out of billions, the DOJ is no where to be found!!

The major corporations have the ability in the code to eliminate most, if not all of their corporate profits. The private sector individual does not have the same playing field as the major corporations. Under this system, you are taxed on your labor earnings, after a few crumb throwing deductions, while the major corporations are allowed deductions and loopholes that enable them to walk away with most profits intact!!

That's right. Corporations are required to pay income tax because they control Congress. Presumably, if corporations did not control Congress, they would be tax free, just like Pete.