Hendrickson losses just keep mounting

[Dezcad]

Swan thinks he was prosecuted to shut him up because he was exposing the "truth" that the Jews brought down the World Trade Center. There wasn't much (and still isn't according a recent letter to the editor that he wrote) that was rational in Swan's defense decisions.

Thanks for the explanation. I made a cardinal mistake in assuming a rational thought process.

Do you have a link to that letter to the editor or anything else of *entertainment* value about Swan? If you do, it is much appreciated.

[Demosthenes]

Swan thinks he was prosecuted to shut him up because he was exposing the "truth" that the Jews brought down the World Trade Center. There wasn't much (and still isn't according a recent letter to the editor that he wrote) that was rational in Swan's defense decisions.

Thanks for the explanation. I made a cardinal mistake in assuming a rational thought process.

Do you have a link to that letter to the editor or anything else of *entertainment* value about Swan? If you do, it is much appreciated.

For what purpose?

[Dr. Caligari]

What kind of of idiot would sue their guru and therefore put the evidence of all of their own tax cheating in the public record for the IRS criminal investigators to find?

Tax shelter investors sue their promoters all the time. They generally don't have criminal exposure, but you sometimes find an investor dumb enough to sue the promoter at the same time they are litigating in Tax Court. They get whipsawed pretty good, because they are saying in Tax Court that they had a bona fide profit motive, while they are alleging in the civil suit that the whole deal was a sham.

[Demosthenes]

What kind of of idiot would sue their guru and therefore put the evidence of all of their own tax cheating in the public record for the IRS criminal investigators to find?

Tax shelter investors sue their promoters all the time. They generally don't have criminal exposure, but you sometimes find an investor dumb enough to sue the promoter at the same time they are litigating in Tax Court. They get whipsawed pretty good, because they are saying in Tax Court that they had a bona fide profit motive, while they are alleging in the civil suit that the whole deal was a sham.

I actually had one of those civil lawsuits in mind (a BOSS case) when I wrote the question.

[jg]

I actually had one of those civil lawsuits in mind (a BOSS case) when I wrote the question.

[pass] jg gives the gold star to Dr C.[/pass]

[Demosthenes]

Do you have a link to that letter to the editor or anything else of *entertainment* value about Swan? If you do, it is much appreciated.

Travesty of justice
Steven A. Swan, Ayer, Mass.

For the Monitor

March 18. 2007 10:00AM

The corruption of the federal criminal justice system must be experienced to be believed.

From 1996 to 2002, I was a follower and promoter of the teachings of nationally known income tax protester Irwin Schiff. I truly believed Schiff's teachings (that the federal income tax is entirely voluntary). I was so convinced that for six years I did everything I could think of to try to disseminate Schiff's teachings to others.

Then in March 2003, the government indicted me for 18 tax felonies. Seventeen of the 18 counts against me were for filing tax returns for myself or preparing them for others which I knew and believed to be false. However, I did not believe they were false, so I should not have been found guilty.

The U.S. attorney prosecuting me (Colantuono) and my judge (Barbadoro) knew I was not guilty, but they prosecuted me anyway. Unfortunately, I could not overcome "the awesome power of the federal government" and convince my jury that I was not guilty.

In July 2004, Judge Barbadoro sentenced me to six years in federal prison, where I remain.

Please disseminate this information to others and please contact President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Senate and House judiciary committees, U.S. Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and ask them to rectify this travesty of justice.
STEVEN A. SWAN

Ayer, Mass.

[John J. Bulten]

Back on track,

The argument that "withholding only applies to government employees" is frivolous, and the argument that "withholding only applies to government employees and corporate officers" is also just as frivolous.

I didn't say Pete made the second argument either. What I said is consistent with the CtC position that withholding applies to government employees, corporate officers, and others otherwise within the meaning, which the USSC has taken to mean others of like kind and class, and the regulations have take to mean others in the same general class. You wanna make another special pleading?

The court has ruled that none of his claims that would allow for the refund are valid.

Actually, the court ruled that one out-of-context sentence was frivolous (when it wasn't frivolous in context) and based its ignorance of all his claims on that its one spurious argument. His true claims (see previous paragraph above) were not ruled specifically invalid in their own right, and they do allow for the refund.

[Imalawman]

Back on track,

The argument that "withholding only applies to government employees" is frivolous, and the argument that "withholding only applies to government employees and corporate officers" is also just as frivolous.

I didn't say Pete made the second argument either. What I said is consistent with the CtC position that withholding applies to government employees, corporate officers, and others otherwise within the meaning, which the USSC has taken to mean others of like kind and class, and the regulations have take to mean others in the same general class. You wanna make another special pleading?

The court has ruled that none of his claims that would allow for the refund are valid.

Actually, the court ruled that one out-of-context sentence was frivolous (when it wasn't frivolous in context) and based its ignorance of all his claims on that its one spurious argument. His true claims (see previous paragraph above) were not ruled specifically invalid in their own right, and they do allow for the refund.

The current administration could really use your services for putting a good spin on a hopeless situation. But they would require you to at least have a basis in fact, which you probably couldn't do, but it might be worth a try.

Seriously, John, that's just being silly.

[jg]

Back on track,

The court has ruled that none of his claims that would allow for the refund are valid.

Actually, the court ruled that one out-of-context sentence was frivolous (when it wasn't frivolous in context) and based its ignorance of all his claims on that its one spurious argument. His true claims (see previous paragraph above) were not ruled specifically invalid in their own right, and they do allow for the refund.

The wording of the decision is not the scope of the ruling.

When the court decided that Hendrickson must pay back the erroneous refund it rejected all of the motions, testimony and arguments that Hendrickson made that would have allowed the refund to stand - whether or not specific mention of each of his claims is made in the decision. If the court did not reject all of his claims by deciding in favor of the DoJ, the refund would have been allowed to stand and Hendrickson would not be required to file amended returns.

It is nonsense to think that the court ruling does not reject all of his claims that were submitted in the case that might have allowed for the refund. The refund is required to be repaid. If any argument that was "not ruled specifically invalid in their own right" was valid he would not have to repay the refund. All his arguments submitted that claimed he did not have income tax due have been ruled to be wrong (or inapplicable) as it was decided that he does have tax due.

[John J. Bulten]

Oh, my apologies! I had thought that your "we" referred to Pete, not to Randy White. I should have understood you to be a devotee of the legal arguments of Randy White, not Pete Hendrickson. John, can you give me the title of Randy White's book--the one that is the foundation for your arguments? Thanks.

Grammarian, Randy's book has not been completed yet, but it's called something like "Action for Declaratory Judgment in Respect of a Federal Tax", as I've indicated.

But so far I agree with everything I've seen of the tax positions of both Pete and Randy. I have other occasional nontax disagreements with them; so I don't hold CtC like a Bible or Quran, because I have held up every sentence of CtC to careful scrutiny and possible disproof. I have concluded every sentence is defensible, just like I do with lots of books.

You imply in another thread that I've dodged something. Well, I'll agree Pete received, if we're talking about which party the judge agreed with, a technical loss. Once again, I'm disappointed you inferred some specific meaning into my generic sentence about winning in a large context, written a week before this decision, and I'm sorry you felt bad about it. Now what specifically did you want to know?

[grammarian44]

Oh, my apologies! I had thought that your "we" referred to Pete, not to Randy White. I should have understood you to be a devotee of the legal arguments of Randy White, not Pete Hendrickson. John, can you give me the title of Randy White's book--the one that is the foundation for your arguments? Thanks.

Grammarian, Randy's book has not been completed yet, but it's called something like "Action for Declaratory Judgment in Respect of a Federal Tax", as I've indicated.

But so far I agree with everything I've seen of the tax positions of both Pete and Randy. I have other occasional nontax disagreements with them; so I don't hold CtC like a Bible or Quran, because I have held up every sentence of CtC to careful scrutiny and possible disproof. I have concluded every sentence is defensible, just like I do with lots of books.

You imply in another thread that I've dodged something. Well, I'll agree Pete received, if we're talking about which party the judge agreed with, a technical loss. Once again, I'm disappointed you inferred some specific meaning into my generic sentence about winning in a large context, written a week before this decision, and I'm sorry you felt bad about it. Now what specifically did you want to know?

First, there is no doubt in my mind that when you said "we are winning," you meant to include Pete all along. It was only after he lost--and this was not a "technical loss," but a complete judicial repudiation of everything he teaches--that you decided that you were really only claiming likely victory for Randy White. It was clearly disingenuous of you to try to distance yourself from Pete in that way the moment he lost.

In this last post you're being disingenuous yet again. When Pete loses, you say you never claimed he would win. Now suddenly you say that you believe everything in his writings about taxation is correct. Were you lying about your beliefs before or are you lying about them now?

Moreover--and this is my essential point that you keep pretending not to understand--once the judge decides, it's over pending either a reversal or Congressional action. All the little details that you keep trying to cite to salvage Pete's argument are irrelevant now. The law doesn't mean what you and Pete think it means. Case closed.

You keep assuming that because the judge failed to consider some picayune detail of Pete's argument that somehow the judge committed some sort of "technical error." That's a true sign that you don't understand much about how judges craft opinions. They have no obligation to address every detail of every argument. If they did, no opinion would ever get published. A judge's obligation is to decide the case in a way that will not be appealed higher up the chain. Period. If Pete appeals, he will lose. Congress will not change the law to accord with Pete's teachings--you've already conceded that point.

Give it up, Bulten. You lost when you thought you would win. No amount of spin can conceal that fact.

[wserra]

I'll agree Pete received ... a technical loss.

[John J. Bulten]

Well, I'm sorry again to hear that you think I distanced myself from Pete, and that you won't take my word for it that, when writing that piece, I was aware the Hendrickson Nine were in trouble and was thinking solely of Randy's cases, which I was posting separate information on.

The court did not repudiate what Pete teaches. It abetted a misrepresentation of what Pete teaches and repudiated that. I've posted the details elsewhere if you're interested.

I don't believe I claimed Pete will win; and I continue to support his position. There is no contradiction, because I knew some subterfuge would be likely (the subterfuge employed was to change Pete's testimony, so that his position was not the one repudiated in court).

Grammarian, you know that all the time Congressional laws as well as judicial case laws are found wrong and/or unconstitutional. Those who push for such laws to be overturned say rightly that such laws are unjust and/or unconstitutional, but they still obey them (except for rare cases justifying civil disobedience). So what if the case law now says "Pete earned wages in 2002-2003": I am free to explain its injustice and entertain hope it will be overturned. This is true even at the USSC.

If on 6/1/07 the law still contains the Catch-22 that "Pete must swear the truth of what he does not believe is true" and "the Constitution permits Pete not to swear the truth of what he does not believe is true", the law has become contradictory as of that date. One must abandon either conscience or the law. Is there anyone here who thinks one should ever do what one believes with great conviction to be wrong?

Judge Nancy took a single sentence of CtC out of context. Perhaps she did not commit a technical error in doing so, because she may have only had judicial notice of the sentence and not the context. But she surely made a sophomoric and remediable error, because you can twist a statement out of context to mean anything, even that the IRS holds the same position Pete is accused of holding.

Truth will always eventually win.

[Nikki]

Truth:

The court ruled that Pete was not entitled to the money which had been refunded to him and that he had to pay it back.

John -- is that not correct?

[The Observer]

Truth:

The court ruled that Pete was not entitled to the money which had been refunded to him and that he had to pay it back.

John -- is that not correct?

It is only technically correct.

[grammarian44]

Truth will always eventually win.

Are you willing to back up that commitment? Suppose Pete loses on appeal. Suppose further that Congress does nothing to change the law to a position substantially similar to yours, say, by the 2008 election. Would you say at that point that your position was untrue? Or will you rely on the weasel word "eventually" to claim that your opinion will prevail someday, maybe in the next thousand years, but just not yet?

Pete has lost. He will lose again on appeal. If appealed to the Supreme Court, cert will be denied. Congress will not act to change the law regarding this aspect of the income tax.

That's all there is to it. There is no need to dig into the details of what the judge did or did not say because it is now irrelevant. My only point here is that you seem incapable of facing the simple fact that your position is already dead, so there is no need to argue it further.

Pete lost. You lost. Stop trying to spin that into something trivial and fixable.

[grammarian44]

One other thing, John, and please answer "yes" or "no":

Do you believe Hendrickson will win his case on appeal?

Note that by using the word "win," I do not mean that an appeals court will find something, anything to disagree with about the lower court's holding. By "win," I mean that the decision of the lower court will be reversed in its entirety.

Are you willing right now to go on the record stating that you believe Hendrickson will win on appeal?

If I don't see a "yes, I believe Hendrickson will win on appeal," then I have to believe that the answer is "no."

[LPC]

The court did not repudiate what Pete teaches.

Pete teaches that he does not receive "wages" for his "work-for-pay." The court ruled that Pete receives wages. That is a repudiation.

Judge Nancy took a single sentence of CtC out of context.

You fail to recognize that the single sentence is wrong even in context.

From earlier in this thread.

As for that context:

c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation. [A "United States Corporation", defined in Sec. 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act as, "a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States...". However, we are instructed by the IRS in Pub. 15A that such officers are only to be considered "employees" if they are paid as a consequence of their positions.]
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person...
So, actually, withholding only applies to the pay of federal government workers, exactly as it always has (plus "State" government workers, since 1939, and those of the District of Columbia since 1921).

The injunction quoted only the last sentence above. It is obvious in context that Pete knows withholding also applies to corporate officers, but is not specifically mentioning them in the offending sentence. Taken alone it may be read as a frivolous position, but in its context it's not.

You think that the last sentence has been taken out of context because Pete knew that corporate officers are also subject to withholding. But if Pete knew that corporate officers are subject to withholding, why did he write that withholding *ONLY* applies to the pay of government workers? The word "only" must have some meaning in the sentence, so it must exclude *someone*.

No matter who Pete meant to exclude, his statement is false, because section 3401(c) does not exclude ANYONE from withholding.

So the statement quoted by the court is both false in context, and also false in *any* context.

[Joey Smith]

The court did not repudiate what Pete teaches.

True only in the sense that the court totally obliterated what Pete teaches.

But where will be the outrage? Where are the tens-of-thousands of legal, tax and constitutional scholars to stand up for Pete and say that the courts are wrong?

Pete is simply wrong, and the court is 100% right. The decision will be affirmed on appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court will deny certiorari since there really isn't any legitimate issue to consider. And Pete will go down the tube, again, and all of his sheeple followers will go down the tube with him, just like all of Lynne Meredith's pure trust sheeple believers, all of Irwin Schiff's zero filer sheeple believers, all of Larken Rose's 861 sheeple believers, all of Bill Benson's 16th Amendment sheeple believers, etc., etc., etc.

Nothing new here, and no new result here.

A few nuts writing e-mails to The Drudge Report, etc., isn't going to change a thing either, just as it didn't in the case of Meredith, Schiff, etc., and those who came before and after them.

[John J. Bulten]

Nikki, you are vernacularly correct; technically, judgment was rendered against Pete for the amount of the refunds.

Grammarian, if you want to know what would cause me to declare my current position untrue, it would basically only happen if I came across a position which both contradicts my current position and also aligns more with the evidence I have than my current position. Pete's position has not lost, because Pete's position was not ruled on at all.

Given the nature of our courts, I am leaning toward the likelihood of Pete being denied on appeal. However, there is also a real possibility that his position may actually get ruled on this time, in which case he would necessarily win because his position is simply what the statutes say. But I think it far likelier that even with the best-crafted appeal, the government will (again) succeed in misrepresenting Pete's position and (again) fail to rule on it.

Dan, as the context demonstrates, Pete is saying "withholding only applies to" government workers in the hypothetical contemplated immediately prior, i.e., where corporate officers are NOT "paid as a consequence of their positions". Pete is also not in this passage commenting on what constitutes "like kind or class" to the classes enumerated, relying on the words "officer of a corporation" and "government workers" to include the like kinds and classes. After all, he included those classes specifically in his thorough exposition in pp. 54-63, culminating p. 61 in the observation,

The best that could be claimed in favor of the government's preferred characterization of our key terms is that "employee" in Section 3401 be understood to include other federal workers whose descriptions are not specifically listed.

In short, 3401(c) employee means only government workers, corporate officers, and others of like kind and class; and whatever the like kind and class means, it is narrow and does not generally contain private workers. They are not "excluded" because they were never "included". If private workers were part of 3401 because of the word "includes", they would also be part of 3231 because of the word "includes" and thereby subject to Railroad Retirement.

Pete's position is that his pay for work is not 3401 "wages" because 3401 "employee" means government, corporate, and similar workers. Nancy in effect ruled, "Pete's position is frivolous because his position is that his pay for work is not 3401 'wages' because 3401 'employee' means government workers." Anyone reading the record can see that Nancy changed Pete's position into a strawman so that she could rule against it. Anyone who thinks Pete's position is essentially the same as the strawman has yet to prove it.