Pete's criminal trial (continued)

[Demosthenes]

02/03/2009 23 REPLY TO RESPONSE by Peter Hendrickson re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Indictment Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Dennis, M.) (Entered: 02/03/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson23.pdf

[Demosthenes]

In calling Defendant a “tax defier” the representatives of the United States Department of Justice are engaging in name-calling and categorizing forbidden to representatives of the United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. See, a portion of the Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act (Taxpayer Bill of Rights), Sec. 3707(a), Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998) which forbids the use of the term “tax protester” or any similar designation.

DOJ lawyers don't work for the US Treasury.

[Imalawman]

In calling Defendant a “tax defier” the representatives of the United States Department of Justice are engaging in name-calling and categorizing forbidden to representatives of the United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. See, a portion of the Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act (Taxpayer Bill of Rights), Sec. 3707(a), Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998) which forbids the use of the term “tax protester” or any similar designation.

DOJ lawyers don't work for the US Treasury.

Details, schmetails. Come on Demo, quit nitpicking!

[Imalawman]

02/03/2009 23 REPLY TO RESPONSE by Peter Hendrickson re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Indictment Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Dennis, M.) (Entered: 02/03/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson23.pdf

Link no work.

[Demosthenes]

Link no work.

All fixed.

[Demosthenes]

Defendant wishes here to put the court and the government on notice that he will insist that the government establish every element of the offense charged and that among the elements of the offenses charged that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt are the following: (1) That Defendant is a “person” subject to the provisions of 26 U.S.C.§7206; (2) That at all times pertinent to the indictment, Defendant was an “employee” as that term of art is defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401 (c); (3) That at all times pertinent to the indictment Defendant earned “wages” as that term of art is defined in 26 U.S.C §3401 (a); (4) That Defendant made false statements on the forms 1040 and forms 4852; (5) That Defendant knew at the time he made the statements that they were false; and (6) That Defendant made the false statements willfully.

Hee hee hee. Pete insists.

[Imalawman]

I suspect that Pete is writing his own motions and sending them to Ms. Dennis, then Ms. Dennis is beefing them up and making them a little more akin to an actual brief. If Ms. Dennis is writing this stuff herself, Pete's in for a disappointing trial experience. Anyone else agree?

[Demosthenes]

In this case there is indeed evidence that Defendant is being prosecuted because he wrote Cracking the Code. Not a single individual other than Defendant who has filed forms1040 or forms 4852 in light of the theories set forth in Cracking the Code has been or is being prosecuted. The government has pointed to the case of United States v. Roger Menner, in the Eastern District of Virginia. Government’s Response, f.2. However, Menner, an independent contractor, in 2005 filed amended returns for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 that were flawed in several respects and failed, in several ways, to follow the theories set forth in Cracking the Code.

If only Roger had done exactly what Pete had recommended, he'd be free?

[jg]

I suspect that Pete is writing his own motions and sending them to Ms. Dennis, then Ms. Dennis is beefing them up and making them a little more akin to an actual brief. If Ms. Dennis is writing this stuff herself, Pete's in for a disappointing trial experience. Anyone else agree?

I must respectfully disagree.
Hendrickson is in for a disappointing trial experience - no ifs, ands or buts about it (IMO); even if the jury decides he is not guilty.

[.]

The entire response is beyond lame. Maybe Ellen is sipping a little of the TP mixture herself.

[Imalawman]

In this case there is indeed evidence that Defendant is being prosecuted because he wrote Cracking the Code. Not a single individual other than Defendant who has filed forms1040 or forms 4852 in light of the theories set forth in Cracking the Code has been or is being prosecuted. The government has pointed to the case of United States v. Roger Menner, in the Eastern District of Virginia. Government’s Response, f.2. However, Menner, an independent contractor, in 2005 filed amended returns for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 that were flawed in several respects and failed, in several ways, to follow the theories set forth in Cracking the Code.

If only Roger had done exactly what Pete had recommended, he'd be free?

So predictable - tax guru starts throwing followers under the bus. What an asshole.

[Demosthenes]

In this case, Defendant wrote a scholarly book. He published it and distributed it. He did not seek publicity.

People who don't seek publicity usually don't send out press releases. Just a thought.

http://www.losthorizons.com/PostNewWitnessTampering.pdf

Or this one:

A Press Release For At-Will Distribution

Please Help Spread The Word By Sending This Release To Any Appropriate Recipient

December 1, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Peter Hendrickson

phendrickson ‘at’ losthorizons.com

READERS OF AN ASTONISHING BOOK ARE REALIZING THEY OWE $0 IN INCOME TAXES, AND ARE GETTING COMPLETE REFUNDS OF WITHHELD MONEY

COMMERCE TWP, MI. Hundreds of readers of a book entitled Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America have come to realize that the federal income tax does not apply to them. They have requested – and received – full refunds of all the money withheld from their pay-- including Social Security “contributions”. The total of just those of which Cracking the Code author, Pete Hendrickson, has been sent copies for posting on his website, http://www.losthorizons.com, is well over $3,450,000.00, and is growing rapidly.

“The reason most people are confused about their legal obligations,” says Hendrickson, ”is that they mistakenly apply the everyday meaning of such terms as ‘income', 'wages', 'employer', 'employee', 'trade or business' and others when managing their tax-related affairs. In fact,” he adds, “these terms have narrow, legal meanings within the tax law.”

How narrow? Hendrickson says they only apply to certain privileged activities, such as holding, administering, or working in a government office; or profiting from investment in federally-owned or -controlled enterprises.

“Although the tax statutes make perfectly clear that, for instance, language describing the obligations of ‘employees’ – and the taxes to which ‘employees’ are subject – only apply to a small minority of American workers, the distinction is artfully concealed in the Internal Revenue Code representation of the law,” he says. “An elaborate system has been created which causes many people to whom the tax laws do not otherwise apply to naively declare themselves to be among the persons to whom those laws do apply, and to tax themselves accordingly.”

The IRS is, of course, perfectly happy to take them at their word. And to take their money.

The government’s response to all of this – aside from providing full refunds, lien and levy cancellations, formal acknowledgements of $0.00 "income" received and $0.00 tax owed, etc. when confronted – has been repeated attempts by the IRS to suppress publication of the book as “promoting an abusive tax shelter.”

“I’m not helping, or even advising, anyone to ‘shelter’ anything,” responds Hendrickson. “Nor am I claiming, like others have, that the income tax is unconstitutional. It isn’t. The only thing I’m "promoting" is a book that tells the truth about the tax code-- a truth the IRS finds highly inconvenient.”

The US Justice Department apparently agrees. It has moved in federal court three times now to dismiss IRS legal actions based on such allegations.

[Demosthenes]

The difficulty faced by Defendant is one that steams from the peculiarities of the income tax laws. Governments usually calculate and asses taxes.

Even the typos are funny.

Did webhick put something in my tea?

[Famspear]

Demo beat me to it. From Hendrickson's reply:

The difficulty faced by Defendant is one that steams from the peculiarities of the income tax laws. Governments usually calculate and asses taxes.

--from top of page 6.

The government isn't the only party making typographical errors.

[Nikki]

The difficulty faced by Defendant is one that steams from the peculiarities of the income tax laws. Governments usually calculate and asses taxes.

Even the typos are funny.

Did webhick put something in my tea?

And she STILL hasn't corrected the incorect reference in her Certificate of Service.

Who the hell is "Defendant Arlee?"

[Famspear]

The difficulty faced by Defendant is one that steams from the peculiarities of the income tax laws. Governments usually calculate and asses taxes.

Even the typos are funny.

Did webhick put something in my tea?

And she STILL hasn't corrected the incorect reference in her Certificate of Service.

Who the hell is "Defendant Arlee?"

Judge: "Defendant Arlee, how do you plead?"

Arlee: "I plead Not Here, Your Honor. Pete's lawyer just made a typo."

Judge: "Thank you for clearing that up, Arlee."

[Famspear]

Defendant wishes here to put the court and the government on notice that he will insist that the government establish every element of the offense charged and that among the elements of the offenses charged that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt are the following: (1) That Defendant is a “person” subject to the provisions of 26 U.S.C.§7206; (2) That at all times pertinent to the indictment, Defendant was an “employee” as that term of art is defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401 (c); (3) That at all times pertinent to the indictment Defendant earned “wages” as that term of art is defined in 26 U.S.C §3401 (a); (4) That Defendant made false statements on the forms 1040 and forms 4852; (5) That Defendant knew at the time he made the statements that they were false; and (6) That Defendant made the false statements willfully.

(bolding added).

Really? Hmmm......

I don't know how section 7206 works in federal courts in Michigan, but in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), I believe the elements of the offense (per the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions) are, or at least recently were, as follows:

The Fifth Circuit Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1), makes it a crime for anyone willfully to make a false material statement on an income tax return.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant signed an income tax return that contained a written declaration that it was made under penalties of perjury;

Second: That in this return the defendant falsely stated that _______ [state material matters asserted, e.g., the defendant received gross income of $_______ during 19__];

Third: That the defendant knew the statement was false;

Fourth: That the false statement was material; and

Fifth: That the defendant made the statement willfully, that is, with intent to violate a known legal duty.

Nothing there about being an "employee" or a "person". Nothing there that says anything about the term "wages."

Maybe someone has quick access to the Pattern Jury Charges that would apply specifically in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan where Hendrickson's trial will be held.....

[LPC]

Defendant wishes here to put the court and the government on notice that he will insist that the government establish every element of the offense charged and that among the elements of the offenses charged that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt are the following: (1) That Defendant is a “person” subject to the provisions of 26 U.S.C.§7206; (2) That at all times pertinent to the indictment, Defendant was an “employee” as that term of art is defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401 (c); (3) That at all times pertinent to the indictment Defendant earned “wages” as that term of art is defined in 26 U.S.C §3401 (a); (4) That Defendant made false statements on the forms 1040 and forms 4852; (5) That Defendant knew at the time he made the statements that they were false; and (6) That Defendant made the false statements willfully.

(bolding added).

Really? Hmmm......

I don't know how section 7206 works in federal courts in Michigan, but in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), I believe the elements of the offense (per the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions) are, or at least recently were, as follows:

The Fifth Circuit Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1), makes it a crime for anyone willfully to make a false material statement on an income tax return.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant signed an income tax return that contained a written declaration that it was made under penalties of perjury;

Second: That in this return the defendant falsely stated that _______ [state material matters asserted, e.g., the defendant received gross income of $_______ during 19__];

Third: That the defendant knew the statement was false;

Fourth: That the false statement was material; and

Fifth: That the defendant made the statement willfully, that is, with intent to violate a known legal duty.

Nothing there about being an "employee" or a "person". Nothing there that says anything about the term "wages."

I have to admit that Hendrickson might have an issue here.

If the issue were solely the filing of a false Form 1040, then the issues of "employee" and "wages" would be immaterial. But Hendrickson is charged with filing a false Form 4852, in which he reported that he did not earn "wages" subject to withholding.

Now, even if he were correct about not receiving "wages," his 1040 would still be wrong because he would have to report his income on some other line. He could, for example, report the amounts received as self-employment income on Schedule C, claiming credit for the income tax and FICA taxes wrongfully withheld through the Form 4852.

So in order to prove that the Form 4852 was false as well as the Form 1040, the government might have to prove that Hendrickson knew that the money he received was not "wages" subject to withholding, and not merely that Hendrickson knew that the money he received was income subject to tax.

[LPC]

In the echo chamber that is Lost Horizons, the issue is no longer whether Hendrickson will win (which is a foregone conclusion, either by a motion to dismiss or a jury verdict), but whether the jury will rise up to lynch the government lawyers. Some excerpts from the forum:

Everything that is taking place in the public arena in relation to the official's tax dodging is not helping the DOJ's case. Keep it coming Lord! Shine that light on all the corrupt lawmakers!

At this rate by the time this trial is concluded the jurors will be ready to lynch
ANYONE associated with government. Timing couldn't have been better!

IMHO this looks like a simple case for Pete to win if he argues:

"Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury. Now that you've we've had a chance to review my publication lets talk about the term "screed" used by the prosecution in a pre-trail motion. Based on the style and content of my publication is it not obvious that anyone applying the term "screed" to my book has their head so far up there a** that their judgment is impaired due to a lack of oxygen?"

Wow. Reading through the DOJ's reply to Pete's motion, they totally avoid the key issue - that he was involved in a specific taxable activity.

In my Philosophy of Logic course in college, an entire unit was devoted to "fallacies of relevance". The DoJ appears to have only those in its arsenal, since it can't refute the facts.

Pete is an incredibly brilliant man. I just hope that when he addresses the jury, that he keeps his vocabulary usage to the level that "Joe Sixpack" can understand. [...]

If the prosecution dodges answering questions at all, or even looks as if they are avoiding addressing any of the jury's concerns, then it's curtains for the DOJ.

I smell revolution in the air!!!

ROFL, this is really great stuff, the IRS is sooo going down. PH' attorney is just consuming the DOJ's juice. They are so used up and will be down for the count, directly!

[Imalawman]

Pete is an incredibly brilliant man.

That forms the basis of the problem with tax protestors. Someone with no training in the law is more qualified than anyone else in the world to interpret the tax laws. That's an incredible about of faith - no person in the history of the US, the world, the educated legal system, and all members of congress throughout history has been able to figure out what Peter Hendrickson was able to discern. I can't imagine believing in someone that much. To ignore every other single living being in favor of believing what this one, uneducated man says is the truth. wow, stunning really.