Pete Hendrickson Trial -- An Important Note

[Demosthenes]

DoJ has so much material from Pete's book & web site that Pete won't need to testify at all.

Everything he could possibly want to say is available in print to share with the jury.

If anything, he's going to have to take the stand to rebut his own words.

Pete won't get to see his book in court. Just like Larken and Schiff didn't get to see theirs.

Duh. You don't rely on your own book for how you came to believe what you believe.

[ASITStands]

I'm reminded that Elaine Brown was allowed to play Larken's video in open court.

So much for tax deniers not being allowed to present arguments or personal interpretation of the law. What more could the tax movement want than Larken's video played in open court?

Bob Schulz, Larken Rose, Ed Rivera testifying in the Dick Simkanin case didn't help. Many observers thought Schulz and Rose were too interested in themselves to help Simkanin.

And, Ed Brown's mantra, "Show Ed the Law!" while Elaine play Larken's video.

It would be a Shakespearean comedy if it weren't so tragic.

[.]

When Hendrickson bites the dust we're going to start to run short of soon-to-be-imprisoned "gurus" to make sport of.

Who'll be left to ridicule? If it's just clowns like Kotmair and his SAPs that would be a bit depressing. Who else is left on CID/DoJ's short list?

[Nikki]

Hansen, The Great One, Bob, and a couple of others

[Joey Smith]

Schultz, Dave Champion and Chrissy Hansen will be a joy to watch their trials, convictions, and sentencings.

[Lambkin]

Could more indictments be in store for the Family Brown?

[Nikki]

There is enough Evidence: Brown to put both of them away for the rest of their lives.

The only question is will DoJ (or the state) bother to prosecute them on the additional charges.

[LPC]

The Supreme Court opinion in Cheek reflects two concerns:

1. There is a difference between (a) ignorance or mistake and (b) disagreement. The first is not "willful" and the second is.

2. There is also a difference between statutory errors and constitutional errors, and that difference reflects a policy that courts should be used to resolve disagreements. If you make a mistake in understanding the statute, then you would not be able to go to court because you would not know that you've made a mistake. But if you understand the statute but disagree about the constitutionality of the statute, then you should go to court to resolve the dispute rather than violating the statute with (seeming) impugnity. So, if you know that there is a disagreement, and you don't utilize the courts to resolve that disagreement, you run the risk of going to jail if it turns out that you were wrong.

Applying these principles to Hendrickson:

1. I believe that there is evidence in Hendrickson's own writings that he knew that his understanding of section 3401(c) was different from the understanding of the IRS and the courts. Hendrickson was not acting out of ignorance, but *knew* that there was a disagreement.

2. Instead of applying to the courts to resolve the disagreement, Hendrickson prepared and filed income tax returns that evaded any resolution of the disagreement. Instead of filing returns that said "I understand that the IRS considers what I received to be 'wages,' but I do not and here's why," Hendrickson filed returns that appeared to comply with IRS standards but that knowingly violated IRS standards.

Hendrickson filed returns stating that he had $0 in "wages" even while he knew that the IRS considered what he received to be "wages." He filed what he filed with the intent to deceive the IRS, and that is why what he filed was "false."

And that is why the claim that "CtC refunds" are any kind of "confirmation" of the correctness of "CtC" is complete nonsense. The IRS can't possibly confirm what has not been disclosed, and "CtC returns" disclose nothing. "CtC returns" are deliberate lies, and IRS refunds issued in response to lies mean nothing.

[SteveSy]

The Supreme Court opinion in Cheek reflects two concerns:

1. There is a difference between (a) ignorance or mistake and (b) disagreement. The first is not "willful" and the second is.
...
1. I believe that there is evidence in Hendrickson's own writings that he knew that his understanding of section 3401(c) was different from the understanding of the IRS and the courts. Hendrickson was not acting out of ignorance, but *knew* that there was a disagreement.

Then how could the court in Cheek reverse the 7th? It was clear Cheek knew the IRS and the court disagreed with him on the correct application of the law. In fact Cheek previously lost a civil case using the same arguments. The 7th claimed his argument wasn't "objectively reasonable" and therefore could not be in good faith due to knowing his position was contrary to known IRS rulings and case law. The 7th denied him the ability to argue that he believed wages were not income. It seems you're saying what the 7th said in so many words.

While your analysis makes sense on the surface it doesn't seem to be compatible with the outcome in Cheek. If your analysis of the opinion were correct Cheek would have been deemed to be disagreeing and denied a second chance.

I think its not just that you disagree with the correct application, it has to be a disagreement with validity of the law itself to bar a Cheek defense. Of course you are a legal "expert" and I'm not but I think you're overlooking some glaring facts.

[Doktor Avalanche]

No offense, Steve, but you remind me of an incurable optimist who - when placed in a room with a room piled to the ceiling with horsesh*t - just knows that deep down there just has to be a pony in there somewhere.

Keep 'em flying, Steve.

[SteveSy]

No offense, Steve, but you remind me of an incurable optimist who - when placed in a room with a room piled to the ceiling with horsesh*t - just knows that deep down there just has to be a pony in there somewhere.

Keep 'em flying, Steve.

I'm not an optimist actually. Pete will probably lose regardless if he's allowed to argue his interpretation of the law. I just don't see why he shouldn't be given a fair chance to defend himself. The government already has the upper hand before anyone even steps foot in a court room. It has unlimited resources, not to mention Pete has the almost impossible task of convincing a jury that he discovered what a 100 million other people have not.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I'm not an optimist actually. Pete will probably lose regardless if he's allowed to argue his interpretation of the law. I just don't see why he shouldn't be given a fair chance to defend himself. The government already has the upper hand before anyone even steps foot in a court room. It has unlimited resources.

I never said you were an optimist - I said you remind me of one.

Exactly how is Pete not being given a fair chance to defend himself? You mean like not being allowed to argue what the law is in court? I'm not a lawyer either, Steve, but even I know you're not allowed to do that - could you imagine a murderer arguing what the law against murder is?

I have to beg to differ with your assesment of the government: it most certainly does not have unlimited resources, it just has more resources than the rest of us.

[SteveSy]

I'm not an optimist actually. Pete will probably lose regardless if he's allowed to argue his interpretation of the law. I just don't see why he shouldn't be given a fair chance to defend himself. The government already has the upper hand before anyone even steps foot in a court room. It has unlimited resources.

I never said you were an optimist - I said you remind me of one.

Exactly how is Pete not being given a fair chance to defend himself? You mean like not being allowed to argue what the law is in court? I'm not a lawyer either, Steve, but even I know you're not allowed to do that - could you imagine a murderer arguing what the law against murder is?

I have to beg to differ with your assesment of the government: it most certainly does not have unlimited resources, it just has more resources than the rest of us.

I guess you haven't read the rest of the thread. Murder doesn't contain the element of willfullness, Pete's crime does. He would not be arguing what the law is , but his interpretation of it as he understood it. You can not willfully violate a law which you beleive does not apply to you.

but it is not contrary to common sense, let alone impossible, for a defendant to be ignorant of his duty based on an irrational belief that he has no duty, and forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision

- Cheek v United States

[Duke2Earl]

It's funny about that "the government has unlimited resources" thing. Yes, when you are comparing the resources of the US Attorney to the average pro se litigant, the government seemingly has more resources, but what it really has is an actual understanding of the actual law and how the courts work. On an actual resource basis the government attorney often is juggling dozens of cases where the litigant has only his butt to worry about. But the fact that the government attorney actually knows what they are doing and why gives them an overwhelming advantage over a pro se litigant.

However, when we are talking about real live big time tax litigation the government is often (if not usually) outgunned, outmanned and at a huge disadvantage. The amount of legal and litigation support resources that big corporations or very wealthy individuals can and do throw at the government attorneys is staggering... and far, far more than the government has at their disposal.

[SteveSy]

It's funny about that "the government has unlimited resources" thing. Yes, when you are comparing the resources of the US Attorney to the average pro se litigant, the government seemingly has more resources, but what it really has is an actual understanding of the actual law and how the courts work. On an actual resource basis the government attorney often is juggling dozens of cases where the litigant has only his butt to worry about. But the fact that the government attorney actually knows what they are doing and why gives them an overwhelming advantage over a pro se litigant.

However, when we are talking about real live big time tax litigation the government is often (if not usually) outgunned, outmanned and at a huge disadvantage. The amount of legal and litigation support resources that big corporations or very wealthy individuals can and do throw at the government attorneys is staggering... and far, far more than the government has at their disposal.

Ok, I didn't mean it really it had unlimited resources in a literal sense. Compared to a pro se it would certainly feel that way. You are not going to even come remotely close to the resources the government has trying to prosecute you. I stand corrected....