Hendrickson's petition for cert. in erroneous refund case

[LPC]

As of this week, CtC-educated returns are officially listed as frivolous positions.

I thought that Hendrickson's returns were already frivolous. What happened this week?

[Nikki]

The "Truth" has been revealed: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

[Famspear]

The "Truth" has been revealed: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

I would think we should be about due for the IRS to issue a new official notice to replace the current IRS Notice 2008-14 (Jan. 14, 2008), which of course replaced IRS Notice 2007-30 (March 15, 2007). Notice 2008-14 is the currently effective list of frivolous positions for purposes of section 6702.

Note: As most readers here probably know, the issuance of Notice 2007-30 on March 15, 2007 was the act that set the effective date for the imposition of the $5,000 penalty under section 6702, as amended. The $5,000 penalty applies to certain frivolous positions taken after March 15, 2007, i.e., on or after March 16, 2007. Prior to that, the old $500 penalty applies.

[Nikki]

The officially-defined list of frivolous positions contains the generic "and anything else" statement.

Given that the positions debunked in the 'Truth' all have specific court cases associated with them, they all fall in the 'other frivolous' category.

In any case, the judicial reviewers of the imposition of the $5,000 penalty should not have any problem agreeing with the IRS that Position X, as defined in the list or specified in the 'Truth', falls well within the definition of frovolous.

The only people who will have a problem with that are the ITPs and sovereignoramuses who will quibble over every comma or de minimus variation which, in what passes for their minds, distinguishes THEIR position from the defined frivolous ones.

For example (and this already happened), they might argue the difference between the IRS's discussion of a tax on wages and THEIR reliance on a wage tax. Et cetera ad nauseum.

[LPC]

The "Truth" has been revealed: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

For those too lazy to search the entire document, Hendrickson is mentioned by name, and his loss in court is cited, in the section on the contention that "The only 'employees' subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government."

[Famspear]

[ . . . . ] The only people who will have a problem with that are the ITPs and sovereignoramuses who will quibble over every comma or de minimus variation which, in what passes for their minds, distinguishes THEIR position from the defined frivolous ones.

For example (and this already happened), they might argue the difference between the IRS's discussion of a tax on wages and THEIR reliance on a wage tax. Et cetera ad nauseum.

I find the consistent, persistent refusal by many of these people to accept that their "analysis" (quibbling over the de minimus variations) is not only impotent but also intellectually dishonest to be quite interesting. No matter how many 6702 penalties are imposed, and no matter how many court losses are cited (even those mentioning Cracking the Code by name), they do (on some weird psychological level) really seem to "believe" that equivocating about the meanings of words based on minor variations in language somehow means that they have not "really" suffered a defeat. The CtCers may have learned this denial tactic from Hendrickson Himself, who appears to be a master at it. Of course, a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and Hendrickson ought to have his picture right next to the dictionary entry for that term) is by definition delusional, so......

[Nikki]

Weston seems to have taken notice of the IRS publication.

However, Weston's grip on reality and coherence seems to be getting more tenuopus each second: "... the IRS had no legal justification (and still has none) to declare any of our CtC filed returns frivolous because the IRS had yet to have listed such a position within their 6702(c) NOTICE ..."

Someday, soon, reality is going to some really nasty things to Weston, his world view, and all of his fellow disciples.

[jg]

I find the consistent, persistent refusal by many of these people to accept that their "analysis" (quibbling over the de minimus variations) is not only impotent but also intellectually dishonest to be quite interesting. No matter how many 6702 penalties are imposed, and no matter how many court losses are cited (even those mentioning Cracking the Code by name), they do (on some weird psychological level) really seem to "believe" that equivocating about the meanings of words based on minor variations in language somehow means that they have not "really" suffered a defeat. The CtCers may have learned this denial tactic from Hendrickson Himself, who appears to be a master at it. Of course, a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and Hendrickson ought to have his picture right next to the dictionary entry for that term) is by definition delusional, so......

In their own minds (or in what they have swallowed from Hendrickson rather than thought through) they need not follow what anyone else, including judges, says is the law.

From the thread at http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 16&start=0

After all, each of us has read the law for ourselves (both Constitutional and statutory), and know what it says; and no "interpretation" of the law by a judge in any court could actually change its meaning, no matter what language was used in expressing that "interpretation". Although it has never done so, even if the Supreme Court itself were to rule in conflict with the words of the law, the ruling would not actually change the law. All that such a ruling could do would be to reveal areas where better scholarship, more diligence or more forcefulness might be needed to remind or instruct the court as to the letter and/or meaning of the law (or reveal the need for Constitutional amendment in order to lay down the law in a manner better-suited to our purposes).

Simplistic popular rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, court rulings don't make law in any sense whatsoever. They merely determine what view of a given law or body of law will be enforced by the government with which they are associated. Theoretically, courts make such determinations based on their best understanding of the lawmakers authority and intent. Should a court be led to a better understanding subsequent to a given ruling, it will reverse itself and order the enforcement of its new perspective.

Unfortunately, what Hendrickson fails to address (and what his followers do not think through) is what the possible result will be when one takes action that is contrary to the decisions of the courts that "determine what view of a given law or body of law will be enforced by the government".

One is free to act contrary to how a given law or body of law will be enforced by the government; but one is a fool not to expect that the law will be enforced according to the court decisions that have interpreted the law.

Hendrickson chooses to mislead and misrepresent what may be the consequences of action contrary to the courts determination of the law.
Hendrickson has incited others to act contrary to how the law will be enforced when he clearly understands (as stated above) that is how the law will be enforced.

[grixit]

This reminds me of the first soveren i met in person, back around 92. He said that slavery could have been ended without bloodshed if only the slaves had insisted that Massa respect the provisions of the Magna Carta.

[LPC]

I find the consistent, persistent refusal by many of these people to accept that their "analysis" (quibbling over the de minimus variations) is not only impotent but also intellectually dishonest to be quite interesting.

That's why I call them "deniers."

[LPC]

After all, each of us has read the law for ourselves (both Constitutional and statutory), and know what it says; and no "interpretation" of the law by a judge in any court could actually change its meaning, no matter what language was used in expressing that "interpretation".

Constitution of the United States, Article III, section 1:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

[Nikki]

Why do you boringly, incessantly keep attempting to introduce stupid FACTS into the LoserHeads' version of a logical process in which the first step is to arrive at the conclusion?

[Bud Dickman]

Appears Weston might be banned from LH.

posted by dii2004

"Actually, scratch that it looks like Hendrickson has banned me from his forum as of yesterday. So I won’t be posting there ever again, lol. I guess this means that he did not like that joke I posted regarding the IRS' dirty dozen listing about him. Either that or somebody hacked into my account and changed my password and email address, but somehow I seriously doubt that is the case. I sent Hendrickson an email, but so far no reply.

Anyhow, that is one think I do agree with Quackloss about, Hendrickson is a superficial “know it all” that suffers from inferiority complex."

http://guests.dailyshownews.com/akira/dtd/17025-2313

[Famspear]

Appears Weston might be banned from LH.

posted by dii2004

"Actually, scratch that it looks like Hendrickson has banned me from his forum as of yesterday. So I won’t be posting there ever again, lol. I guess this means that he did not like that joke I posted regarding the IRS' dirty dozen listing about him. Either that or somebody hacked into my account and changed my password and email address, but somehow I seriously doubt that is the case. I sent Hendrickson an email, but so far no reply.

Anyhow, that is one think I do agree with Quackloss about, Hendrickson is a superficial “know it all” that suffers from inferiority complex."

http://guests.dailyshownews.com/akira/dtd/17025-2313

I've been engaged in conversation with dii2004 and a few others over there for the past few days; I've been using the name "lawfulman" over there.

[Thule]

Anyhow, that is one think I do agree with Quackloss about, Hendrickson is a superficial “know it all” that suffers from inferiority complex."

For most people, figuring out that your mentor an shining light is a superfiscial know-it-all with an inferiority complex, would prompt you to re-evalute your stance. Let's see what Weston does.

Then again, he has already hinted that banning people from publishing their opinions on LH is a defense of free speech. I'm sure Westie-poo can figure out excactly how his own banishment actually proves that Hendrickson is correct.

[webhick]

I've been engaged in conversation with dii2004 and a few others over there for the past few days; I've been using the name [redacted] over there.

Do you really think it's wise to reveal your username over there? Pete might find out and ban you. Then you'll have to go through the trouble of setting up a new id and re-connecting with the users you were conversing with.

[Dezcad]

I've been engaged in conversation with dii2004 and a few others over there for the past few days; I've been using the name [redacted] over there.

Do you really think it's wise to reveal your username over there? Pete might find out and ban you. Then you'll have to go through the trouble of setting up a new id and re-connecting with the users you were conversing with.

Famspear was referring to the Daily Show guest site, not LH.

[Famspear]

I've been engaged in conversation with dii2004 and a few others over there for the past few days; I've been using the name [redacted] over there.

Do you really think it's wise to reveal your username over there? Pete might find out and ban you. Then you'll have to go through the trouble of setting up a new id and re-connecting with the users you were conversing with.

Famspear was referring to the Daily Show guest site, not LH.

Yeah, and webhick, don't you know that if I even tried to set up a user account at losthorizons under my own user name, just the attempt might well cause Hendrickson's web site to explode?

Hey.... wait a minute......... Umm, no, I guess I better not.....

[webhick]

Famspear was referring to the Daily Show guest site, not LH.

I totally knew that. I was just testing you.

[Famspear]

I still don't see any record of Peter Hendrickson actually having filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the erroneous refund case. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't located it.