Pete's criminal trial (continued)

[Demosthenes]

According to the criminal indictment, Hedrickson works (or at least worked) for a company called Personnel Management Inc. "in various capacities, including as a purchaser.”

[webhick]

According to the criminal indictment, Hedrickson works (or at least worked) for a company called Personnel Management Inc. "in various capacities, including as a purchaser.”

Isn't that a temp agency?

[webhick]

As an aside in this saga, I have wondered about how exactly during this time Pete is supporting his family. Does he have any source of income? Can't imagine that selling his book puts food on the table and pays the bills.

Not just the book. Don't forget the "Legal Offense Fund." I got curious, so I stepped into the wayback machine to discover that between 4/30/07 and 12/21/07, the LOF (which also stands for "Lube, Oil, Filter" - take that as you will) increased $14,158.74. An average of $60.25/day. Stretch that average out to a year and he got an estimated $21k off his followers, in addition to what the merchandise brought in. Although, for much of the '07 data, there was between a $2k and $4k increase per month, so I'm probably lowballing. There is no proof that this money is sitting in a savings account, waiting to be used. Actually, there's a bit of anecdotal evidence to the contrary:

As of 10/6/06, the LOF amount was $23,766.55 and roughly a month later, it's $25,076.55. If it was in an interest bearing account, the cents would have differed. This also happened between 04/30/07 and 05/29/07 as well as 07/20/07 and 09/01/07. I think he's living off the money, to be honest.

$21k + merchandise sales + donations + Doreen's job = probably enough to survive.

Darth also has a donation page set up that appears to be separate from the LOF. There was also a defense fund set up towards the end of last year, by Weston White. The site is down now, probably due to Pete banning him, but the last reported total was, IIRC, over $4,600. Weston can probably clarify what the final total was and happened to the money (if it was sent directly to Pete or Pete's lawyer).

[Imalawman]

Ok, so I've been MIA for a few weeks, can anyone just give me the summary of where we're at with this case? MOD hearing? Trial date? Thanks!!

[Famspear]

Update for imalawman:

Hearing on defendant's motion for dismissal set for May 14.

No trial date.

Defendant now has two attorneys (different firms): Ellen Dennis & Lyle D. Russell, Jr.

[Weston White]

Here are all the posts, in somewhat of an order from my conversation on the Warrior Group regarding the recent newsletter (the Google group GUI is terrible):

Myself, original post (Titled “OMG! has Hendrickson completely snapped?”):

Has anybody read his recent newsletter?

At: http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

Seriously, CtCers need to email him for a bit of reality check
therapy! Though I doubt he would even listen... observe for yourself:

"By the way, I urge everyone to pay particular attention to the
explicit misrepresentations in the district court rulings, and the
convenient "confusion" (and other, related behaviors) of the appellate
court, which are discussed in the petition. Recognize clearly and
soberly that these things didn't happen by accident, and they didn't
happen other than out of desperation."

NOTICE: "... pay particular attention to the explicit
misrepresentations in the district court rulings ..."

-- Now I can personally tell you that I have read the released court
documents myself, there is no "misrepresentation", Hendrickson LOST
his case, he LOST his appeal, and he is now praying for a CERTIORARI
with the justices... meanwhile he is facing TEN FELONY CHARGES and the
IRS is moving to list his CtC METHOD as a bona fide 6702(c) violation.

"As I said, pay careful attention to these misrepresentations. When
you encounter ANYONE repeating DOJ/IRS spin about "Hendrickson" or
"CtC" "losing" in court, set them straight in no uncertain terms. The
DOJ and IRS are the ones who have lost this case-- at this point
they're just hoping that too many people don't actually read the
record and discover that fact."

NOTICE: "... The DOJ and IRS are the ones who have lost this case ..."

-- If this is even remotely true than why is it that Hendrickson is
the one filing with SCOTUS? Why is it that Hendrickson is the one that
is in court facing countless criminal charges? Why is it that
Hendrickson is the one now on the IRS’ 'Dirty Dozen List'?

I think we all have to begin seriously asking ourselves if we are
suffering from a cult of personality disorder. Are we making the right
argument or are we stuck in a cul-de-sac wading around biding our
time, blindly? It is one thing to be making the right argument;
however, it is an entirely different thing to be making a bad one.

Personally I think we should stick to the absolute core issue and
forget about arguing the IRC. I have been thinking about that for
quite awhile now. I think arguing the IRC will result in a win never
gained or realized. Sure being familiar with the IRC is great for
reference, but not for a winnable defense or offense. If the core is
unable to support us, than the IRS most certainly will not either,
regardless.

Hendrickson wants to keep arguing Subtitle C. I think he is making bad
arguments. That is the same as arguing about whether or not the egg
coming from the chicken, when it has already hatched, grown up and is
now laying its own eggs. Ergo, what is the point? It is time to move
on to an argument that is more substantial. That argument is the
Constitution itself, specifically, not about “incomes” so much, but
what is “capitations”, so far as ones labor is concerned at least.

I have been working on a two page pamphlet about this idea I have been
having and will post it once I finish the first draft, which should be
within this week some time.

Here is an excerpt from the pamphlet to give a better idea of what I
mean:

"To better illustrate, you of course already realize that until such
time that you are the operator or an occupant of a motor vehicle than
your States ‘Vehicle Codes’ do not directly apply to you; and that if
you are a citizen of the United States of America than you need not
concern yourself with naturalization or immigration law compliance;
and that if you do not “open carry” an unloaded firearm or “conceal
carry” (CCW) a loaded firearm, than you do not worry about your States
‘Penal Codes’ pertaining to those who do choose to exercise their II
Amendment rights while in public. To put it more pointedly, if you
are not the subject of the Internal Revenue Code, than you would not
be liable under such federal revenue laws. The same as if you are not
the operator, occupant, or owner of a motor vehicle, or a firearms
owner, or are a citizen of the United States of America… because such
relational laws would not have any legal bearing upon you otherwise.
Hence, manufacturing “positional” arguments of any form is entirely
unnecessary and serves only as a distraction, a “red-herring” at
best."

Ergo, only a fisherman or hunter, engaged in such qualifying
activities would need to concern themselves with State Fish and Game
Codes… regardless if they have a valid license or not. Only a captain
of a vessel need to concern themselves with State Harbor and
Navigation Codes, etc..

Jerry,

Well put. The question here, to Myself, is not whether Pete's approach is legally correct. I can see no hint of anything but his complete and correct understanding of the law and its application.

But this has nothing to do with anything, if the courts are so thoroughly owned by our Captors that they just throw out correct legal arguments upon orders from their superiors to do so. That is what I have been suggesting for a long time.

I think CTC is correct. I also think that may not matter. It is not "desperation" when the courts simply deny the law. It is that those presenting them with the correct legal arguments leave them no other choice than to come a bit further out of the closet, so to speak, and tip their hand a little. That little, is a hint that they are not yet openly ruling by force, but are buying time in preparation for ruling by total force, as we burn up energy with them using legal arguments.

In the end, they are not going to say, "oh drat, they were correct legally, so we just have to go back to the rule of law." No, they are going to follow the next step at the discretion of those telling them what to do, and that is to generally decide court cases by decree, having nothing to do with the correct meaning of legal issues. That is the step closely preceding the step of total martial law, and making the suspension of the Constitution official.

How many of us have seriously thought about our response in that scenario. It is approaching, and we will not be well advised to consider only when they are at our doors.

Richard

Weston,

Pete's reference to "the explicit misrepresentations in the district court rulings, and the convenient "confusion" (and other, related behaviors) of the appellate court, which are discussed in the petition" is a reference to the incorrect arguments made by the DOJ which was accepted and approved by the courts. Pete is not confused. In order to create a ruling against Pete, the DOJ has to either ignore the words of the law and/or twist the meaning of the words to be contrary to the authority the Constitution gives the United States government. For those who have followed the operatives whose primary goal is to expand the power of the empire, there is a long history of the DOJ and the courts committing this type of violence against Americans.

Jerry

Myself,

Yes but that is completely avoid of reality. The fact still stands that the courts, had ruled against him and on more than one occasion. That means at this present time, Hendrickson is in the wrong, regardless of what he knows or believes, or thinks he knows or believes. Saying the courts acted inappropriate is not really a defense now is it? And as a side issue why had Hendrickson not filed an action against the DOJ and Judge for violating their Hippocratic Oaths if that is what he truly believes; why no mandamus neither?

How the hell can he dare to sit there and say that they did not win their case, when the really did win their case against him? He is misleading everybody that reads his newsletter. The IRS claims that Hendrickson had to pay them $20,000 back. The judge instructed him to no longer file using the CtC method. That does not sound like much of a win to me. Sure the DOJ and courts played tricks and called him names. However, that is besides a very moot point, which is the name of the game in a court of law. To bend the law as much as possible and best represent you client by whatever means necessary without actually breaking the law in the process.

What he should be saying is that I lost my case and my appeal, I lost because I entered that courtroom with a very bad argument, the DOJ came in with a superior argument, the judge knew it and that is why I lost my cases. That means in essence that I need to rethink my overall strategy, correct my mistakes, and come up with a much better and more effective game plan. I now realize that sticking with the same loosing plan is not the way to go at all. My lost cases or evidence of that.

No instead he remains sitting upon his high throne (for now) casting wrong doing upon the judicial system and government as a whole. It could not just actually be that he is way off base in his own understanding and beliefs could it? Sure there is some corruption mixed in there, but personal reevaluation, a requisite ingredient is definitely missing from the recipe that is Pete Hendrickson.

The reality, even if Hendrickson is correct in his (long) present assertions, guess what... so far as the entire government is concerned, he is still wrong... the Judicial system has said so. As they say you cannot argue with the law, you can only argue the law. And thus far the law appears to be entirely against Hendrickson "understandings".

Maybe I'm missing something here!! The essence of the argument was, as I understand it, the ability or inability of the government to actually state or dictate what a person does or does not believe. So, are you saying that the court's decision to make Pete testify against his own belief is the "right" decision?? We understand that it was rendered in a judiciary environment. But courts have acted inappropriately in the past in a number of various decisions. I get the impression that you feel that the court has acted appropriately AND that Pete should acknowledge the "appropriateness" of their decision. Regardless, when this gets back to the original point, can the court make someone respond in a manner that is contrary to their belief??

Don

Myself,

I didn’t think you needed a fishing or hunting license for game on private property?

Though taxable income is simply whatever income is left over minus government permitted deductions. I am not sure what significance that has so far as being any real concern?

Sure the government can’t prevent you from traveling, but I do believe the government has full rights and a public responsibility to make, implement, and enforce reasonable laws that ensure that people operating such things as guns and vehicles and certain professions fully know how to manage and perform such responsibilities. For example we can’t let a blind person drive vehicles or carry guns around now can we? What about somebody that is always drunk or high on narcotics or a habitual criminal, should they get to? Should they be permitted to even own a gun? Should a sexual deviant be permitted to enter the medical profession or work at a schools, or illiterate individual should they get to become an attorney or judge? Should a psychotic be allowed to fly commercial airliners or drive school buses?

And use abuses do occur, and that is the fine line that gets crossed unfortunately. Much of that has to do with poor education and private agendas being implanted in the mass-populous.

To see just how corrupt our judicial system is, check out the many
books on the subject by Rodney Stich. Although he doesn't touch on
the income tax fraud, he sure does a great job of outing corrupt
judges, DA's, prosecutors and the like.

Rodney Stich (be sure to check out his credentials)
http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=R ... cad=author
-
navigational

The scary thing about fighting the income tax fraud is that even if
we're right we can still be thrown in jail. This is, I believe, the
reason that most people won't take the steps CtC warriors have. I
keep saying that there just aren't enough warriors out there to put a
stop to this. Perhaps when enough people have nothing left to lose
they'll take up the fight. Looks like that's coming pretty soon
seeing as how there are now 16 tent cities throughout the country.

Laila

he should not as you put it, "be saying is that I lost my case and my appeal, I lost because I entered that courtroom with a very bad argument, the DOJ came in with a superior argument, the judge knew it and that is why I lost my cases"

and thus far you appear entirely against the principles of freedom and have missed the point of his book...

"Though taxable income is simply whatever income is left over minus government permitted deductions." this statement proves it.

or the Constitution .. or why this country was founded ..

"Our founders had just declared their new nation free from a British government that had "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and .... impos(ed) Taxes on us without our Consent..." They had no intention of forming another government which would, itself, possess that same power. Instead, they wished to secure the individual rights of future generations of Americans from infringement by government." - Our Ageless Constitution page 35

Dan

Weston,

To whom do hunting licenses apply? Suppose two men go into the woods where hunting licenses are required in order to hunt dear during dear hunting season. Both men are members of a private club that owns thousands of acres of land set aside for hunting and both plan to take careful aim and shoot. Each takes a sleeping bag, food, water, and all other supplies necessary for a two-day stay. They go to the same private land during the same week. The only difference between the two is that one takes a high caliber rifle and the other takes a high speed camera. One man engages in taking breath-taking pictures, while the other shoots breath-taking bullets. Do both men need to purchase the hunting license? Clearly, no. The government has authority to require only the man whose purpose is to kill dear to get the license. Does the government have authority to penalize the man shooting the breath-taking pictures? Clearly, no.

But the government does its best to blurr the distinction between the two men by hauling the camerman into court and citing all the similarities of the two men and ignoring the actual distinctions, as well as focusing on only part of the law and ignoring the limitations of the law. Intent on expanding its power, the court rules that the cameraman must buy the hunting license or be penalized the same as if his purpose had been to harvest a dear carcass.

There is a legal difference between income and taxable income. There is a legal difference between driving as a privilege and exercising one's right to travel. But if the history of the courts over the past few decades is any indication, we can not expect the courts to rule in our favor and for the preservation of our liberties.

This is how those in control of the machinery of government whose primary goal is to build the power of the government abuse society. It is as much a form of violence against society as any mugger on the street.

Jerry

Weston,

Your understanding is incorrect in two ways. First, the entire purpose of having an appeal process is for a higher court to examine the record of a lower court to see if the court or any of its officers made mistakes, either in their conduct or arguments. Everyone is entitled to one appeal. The presumption of the higher court is that the lower court ruled correctly, so the appeal process always faces an uphill battle in overcoming the presumption that the lower court was correct. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is not by right, since it is always a second appeal, but by writ of certorari which means permission to hear the case is granted at the pleasure of the court. A denial of the writ of certorari is not an endorsement of the lower courts' rulings, although it leaves those rulings in effect.

Second, the federal court in United States v. Johnson et al. (Feb. 26, 1947) ruled that it is only the belligerent claimant in person who has the right to press his case. In their own words:

• "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." [Bold added.] United States v. Johnson et al., 76 F.Supp. 538 (1947).

Pete must be the belligerent claimant in person and press his case until all his remedies have been exhausted. Even then, if he should lose when his arguments are righteous, his arguments should still be carried on to educate a greater portion of the populace so that eventually justice might prevail. Remember Plessy v. Ferguson and the eight times it was confirmed before it was overturned in 1952. Sometimes it takes a long time for those in authority to get it right. A righteous cause should never be abandoned. A court ruling that is contrary to law or one's inalienable rights should always be resisted. Also remember that case law is only the opinion of the court and does not change the ink on paper enacted by Congress except in the unusual instance when the court rules the enactment unconstitutional. So long as that ink remains on paper, we have the right to seek a remedy for the injustice carried out against us by those who rule over us.

Jerry

Myself,

“Maybe I'm missing something here!! The essence of the argument was, as I understand it, the ability or inability of the government to actually state or dictate what a person does or does not believe. So, are you saying that the court's decision to make Pete testify against his own belief is the "right" decision?? We understand that it was rendered in a judiciary environment. But courts have acted inappropriately in the past in a number of various decisions. I get the impression that you feel that the court has acted appropriately AND that Pete should acknowledge the "appropriateness" of their decision. Regardless, when this gets back to the original point, can the court make someone respond in a manner that is contrary to their belief??\”

-- No, what I am stating it is that it is of little consequence as to how appropriately or inappropriately the courts acted. The end result is what matters. And that was a finding of guilty and it was upheld in the appellate. Aside from that I am saying Hendrickson had a weak defense and a fool of an attorney, meaning himself.

“Regardless, when this gets back to the original point, can the court make someone respond in a manner that is contrary to their belief?”

-- To a point yes, by way of penalties and physical confinement.

But that is merely Hendrickson’s version of events. Does a judge not have the right to admonish the guilty party? To tell a rapist to rape no longer, to tell a murder to not murder again, to tell a drunk driver to never drive drunk again? It namely for official court records, thereafter should that person go to trial at a later date for a new and related violation… they cannot argue they did not understand or were never told precisely not to.

There is a difference in what Hendrickson has stated on his website and what the judge had stated in his court of law. The judge simply advised that Hendrickson is not to file that way anymore, meaning that, should you file that way you in the future, you will be in further violation of law. Now sure he can continue to file that way, but it will be that much worse for him come his next court hearing with the DOJ standing in as the prosecution.

Now you can file according to your belief, but you risk perjuring yourself if you knowingly lie in the process, which is why he is now facing 10 felony charges for “Declaration under penalties of perjury”, 26 USC 7206. Ergo, knowingly lying under numerous jurats… and as of late his case is going down hill. So far he has gotten a new judge (first judge withdrew from the case), Hendrickson just got a new attorney (which he did not bother telling anybody), and a postponed trial date.

Myself,
he should not as you put it, "be saying is that I lost my case and my appeal, I lost because I entered that courtroom with a very bad argument, the DOJ came in with a superior argument, the judge knew it and that is why I lost my cases"
-- Yes he should, it is called admitting defeat, being a man, manning up, correcting your wrong doing, learning from you mistakes, or however else you want to put it.

and thus far you appear entirely against the principles of freedom and have missed the point of his book...
-- No the point of the book is to follow the law. How can you on one hand say you are following the law, when the judicial evidence is pointing against you? You are either a hypocrite or you are not.

"Though taxable income is simply whatever income is left over minus government permitted deductions." this statement proves it.
-- It is right there in 26 USC Sections 61 and 63 look them up for yourself. Here is the link:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... _40_I.html

or the Constitution .. or why this country was founded ..

"Our founders had just declared their new nation free from a British government that had "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and .... impos(ed) Taxes on us without our Consent..." They had no intention of forming another government which would, itself, possess that same power. Instead, they wished to secure the individual rights of future generations of Americans from infringement by government." - Our Ageless Constitution page 35

-- What are you talking about? Our Forefathers implemented, the government is empowered to lay and collect taxes. Alexander Hamilton debated the right and the need to tax in Federalist Papers 12, 30-36.

-- I am only arguing that perhaps Hendrickson's theory is incomplete, incorrect, or outright the wrong argument to support. I am not saying the current system of taxation is justified, I know that it is being misapplied.

You're right, Don. The problem is that the DOJ and the courts have framed the issues totally devoid of any of the arguments Pete has presented to the court. In a certain sense, the court isn't even looking at Pete's CtC arguments except as they are portrayed by the DOJ, which says Pete knew he believed the government was right all along. Allow me to illustrate it. When you file a complaint with the court, the court will probably read it even though it knows there will be a reply brief from the defendant. A lot of times the judges don't even read the complaint because they think they'll get the gist of the arguments by reading the defendant's reply brief. After that, the plaintiff or prosecutor has the right to file a response to the defense arguments. The issues are to be framed according to the complainant. In this case, the DOJ is the complainant who frames the issues. Pete is entitled to an affirmative defense, but the DOJ gets the last word. Thus, the court has ruled according to the arguments presented by the DOJ and not Pete. The basis of Pete's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have much to do with the arguments in his book, but to due process and honesty as you've described it. The law clerks who review the appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the various justices will presume that the lower courts acted correctly so that Pete's appeal has to point out the due process discrepancies. So long as it appears on the record that Pete was given a fair trial and accorded minimum due process, the court is unlikely to accept his appeal.

This is pretzel law - the twisting of issues, facts, and processes by government agents to get what they want.

Jerry

Myself,

Not really, Hendrickson is by no means an attorney and is actually arguing protection under 'res judicata' in his SCOTUS petition, so far as the court had no legal right to place him on trial in the first place (because they withdrew their original petition against him, prior to actually going forward with the trail at a later date). Obviously that is a very silly notion.

Weston,

All govenments in American society are governments of limited authority. That authority is delegated to them by We the People. Governments have no rights. Governments only have authority to act according to the expressed will of the people. The rights of the people are superior to the authority of government, which is why government must offer due process -- a process that is due or owed to the one accused -- when it wants to take action against an individual.

Hunting licenses have nothing to do with the manner in which the land is owned, but with taking something that belongs to the public -- the wildlife. The government is the trustee of the wildlife within its boundaries and a deer on private property is still within the trustee authority of the government. Hunting licenses apply to the wildlife named in the license (deer in my illustration) and absolutely apply to private property when the wildlife is on private property.

Your description of taxable income demonstrates a complete ignorance of the law. Read Pete's book. The federal income tax is an excise tax, and an excise tax is a tax on being engaged in some privilege authorized by the government. Taxable income under federal law is the income derived from being engaged in a federally privileged activity. The tax is on the exercise of the privilege, the amount of income derived thereby merely being the basis for calculating the amount of the tax. Income derived by working in a private capacity is not taxable income.

The only purpose for the dirver's license if for identity. The driver's license is not intended to indicate competence in handling a vehicle or a contrivance.

All the other questions you raise are filtered out naturally. For instance, how could an illiterate person attempting to serve as a judge read the briefs and write opinions? Even if an illiterate person could get appointed or elected as a judge by reason of the strength his personal popularity, his incompetence would quickly be grounds for removal from such office. Your other questions are equally inept.

I agree that we, as a society, are doing a poor job of educating ourselves and our youth regarding the rights an individual has and for taking personal responsibility for one's life. The system is doing its best to dumb everything down and thereby make it easy for government workers to have their way.

Jerry

Myself,

That is of course presuming that ones argument is the correct and best argue to be defending. By all appearances, that does not appear to be the case.

I believe sticking to the core issue, the crux of the debate, that is your best weapon. Forget about debating term this and term that… Ultimately this is merely semantics, unless your fountain is solid and your central core is secure… those such cases never win, this is not just about Hendrickson’s case, there are may other such and similar cases… all lost! Is not the majority of CtC merely a rehash of theories past?

What is the foundation, is it “The Code” itself or is it the categories and classes of taxes, which serve ultimately to create and support “The Code”? I have come to the conclusion that it is latter.

Is it not truly weak to be arguing terms? If you are arguing terms, isn’t it possible that you just might be incorrect or confused? Though does that change the nature of your core argument, which is regarding the class of tax being levied? If that is incorrect, than most likely everything else you have conceived is as well incorrect, not that it would really matter at that point. However, if your core is correct, why argue terms, what point does that serve, but to unnecessarily complicate the issues which remain at hand? Keep it simple and poignant.

To further elaborate, does an innocent man standing trial for murder argue the complexities of the murder statute or does he argue his whereabouts, the evidence presented, and how it could not have possibly been him? In either case regardless, you still have a dead body that somebody murdered and the law is going to want its justice. Which defense affords you the best opportunity to prove your innocence and clear your good name?

Myself,

Of course it never helps when one submits their motions not formatted properly in accordance with court instructions like Hendrickson did and than complained to SCOTUS in his petition that his motion was rejected. Of course it was not his mistake; Hendrickson is never in the wrong, never!

Myself,

True governments do not have rights, they do however, have powers vested to them by the people for the purposes of representing them as a whole. Their authority is not exactly limited, it is more so precisely defined or enumerated. To say that the federal government has limited powers of taxation would be incorrect, because they have unlimited powers of taxation, so long such powers are enforced in accordance with those enumerated (prescribed) to them by Fundamental Law. And no the government must ensure due process because it had been at a later time prescribed for within the Bill of Rights.

Now taxable income is (26 USC 63):

“… “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).”

I have conducted substantial writing on the matters of what are ‘incomes’ and whatnot, my work is posted all over http://losthorizons.com/phpBB and on my own websites. I feel I have a very good understanding of the terms within the IRC. Thank you for telling me I know nothing though. That was very thoughtful of you.

The questions I wrote served to prove a point… clearly my point was proven as it appears that it was entirely missed by you and in your reference to them as “inept”. No an illiterate person could not become a judge because they would not be qualified for the position. My point was to iterate that we need to have uniform requirements and licenses for certain activities to protect the general interest and well-fair of the populous. Not everything is a guaranteed right. A habitual drunk driver should not be permitted to legally drive, that does not however, prevent them from seeking other forms of transportation for travel. A robber should not be allowed to own or possess weapons, ect., etc..

An Identification card is for identification purposes, for which a driver’s license serves a dual purpose for. One does not get a specified class of driver’s license until they have proven competence in operation the class of motor vehicles for which they are applying for. On the contrary one may get an identification card by merely filling out the application for where they are seeking whatever identification card.

Myself,

Then please explain to me again why Hendrickson is praying upon SCOTUS for "justice" after having to cough up $20K back to the IRS, all meanwhile facing 10 felony counts, and why the IRS is just a few short months away from placing (their version of) CtC on the 6702(c) list?

Weston,

When Pete files according to the explicit provisions enacted by Congress and signed by the President of the United States, using the forms created by the service for the correction of records, no court rightly considering the evidence can condemn such a person. This is an instance when the court is in error. Only the operatives of a banana republic bahave in that manner. This is beneath the dignity of our American system of jurisprudence where the rule of law is to prevail and where even the agencies of government must hue to the law.

Their error is not without a purpose. Their purpose is to extract as much money from the pockets of Americans as possible without inducing an uprising and, secondarily, to instill as much fear as possible in the hearts of Americans for crossing them. Greed first; easy exercise of greed second.

Jerry

These are strong arm tactics the government uses when it wants to bully its way through society. Explain to me why the court ruled that my 16th Amendment arguments had all been ruled against by prior courts when I never made a single comment about the 16th Amendment in my complaint or in any motions. If you haven't had experience with the system lying and cheating on you, I guess you feel it can't do any wrong. It seems you don't have a clue about what the governments are doing to American society.

Jerry

Weston,

You are absolutely wrong. You must work for the IRS or FTB as your arguments are right in line with their twisting of words and phrases, and taking things out of context. The only thing you have proven is that you are no friend of freedom. Show us where the U.S. Constitution expresses an unlimited authority for federal taxation. It isn't there.

You quote a little about "taxable income". What that doesn't say anything about is income that is not taxable. We all have the right to earn and receive non-taxable income. The court said it this way:

Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland (June 6, 1960)
"It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege."
"Realizing and receiving income is not a privilege that can be taxed." p. 455. [Bold added.]
"Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege." p. 456. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960).

According to your argument, earning a living by being industrious is a taxable privilege producing taxable incoMyself, but that is not what the court ruled. Being industrious is a personal quality and cannot be taxed.

Regarding the purpose of the driver license, I refer you to People v. Monroe, 12 Cal.App.4th 1174;16 Cal.Rptr.2d 267[Jan.1993]. The dirver license does not indicate competence, but has the sole purpose of identification.

Jerry

Weston,

What drivel you produce! Unless, of course, you advocate giving in to the legal molestors.

All of law hinges on the artful use of words. It is the very reason why legislatures hold hearings and often create definitions for specific words that are limited to certain enactments or sections of enactments. It is the very reason why courts often deal with the meaning of a term in a statute or code section and spend paragraphs -- even pages -- describing the nuances of certain words, because the meaning of the intent of the law is determined by the meaning of the words. Words have meaning. To ignore this is to be ignorant of how the written law works. Often certain words are given special meanings for a particular circumstance. It is the very reason why there is an entire legal encyclopedia named "Words and Phrases" that runs many volumes. It is these authorities we rely on that shape our understanding of the enactment. We don't make up anything.

It is not weakness to rely on the published authorities as the basis for one's arguments. In fact, it is necessary to do so. No wonder Pete kicked you off the LH site.

Jerry

It is the substance, and not the form, that counts. There have been cases where an inmate wrote his appeal on notebook paper where no part of the appeal conformed to any rules of the court. A documnet that lacks the prescribed form does not thereby become disqualified. It would be helpful if you would focus on what matters.

Jerry

The fact is that the courts have ruled against him. Illegally. This DOES NOT mean that Pete is "in the wrong," merely that the train of justice has left the rails due to the absolute necessity for the PTB to maintain the eminence front of their fraud. Pete's right about the misrepresentations.

We're dealing with a massive criminal conspiracy. If there were a lawful requirement for people to declare their revenues received in exchange for their lawful property, their labor, then there would not be the obvious record of refunds from IRS and state tax boards based on zero income filings. The matter is that the entire financial structure of our world culture stands on the acquiescence of the population to debts created by "state," that is to say private usurper, interests. That's taxation without representation, FYI.

We have reached the point where we're returning to overt neoFeudalism. They own us, and if we don't like it we can appeal to a corrupt court system.

Bruce

Bruce and Jerry,

Yes, I think it is clear that Pete's argument is legally correct. His book was not mistaken. He has done an immense service to all of us in showing us the complete deception underlying the tax code and its application. He may be wrong about one critical thing, though, and that is that anyone cares in the higher power structure that he is right. Well, actually they do care, but not in the sense he was always hoping they would.

Pete has invested much of his time, energy and money, that we might be made aware of the real nature of law and the tax code. However, our adversaries have invested thousands of times more time, money and evil intent into building the structure of oppression that many of us are just now becoming slightly aware of. They are ready to crush us by force at any time. They just prefer to con us into crushing and enslaving ourselves instead, so they can remain invisible. Pete's actions will not make them give in to the rule of law, but more likely push them along to their next step in oppression.

That is why I continue to encourage all of us to start to think clearly about the real situation, and what can be done that will work. Being "right" is not going to positively impress our Rulers, it will just be taken into consideration for how they apply their gradual move toward total domination of every part of our lives, and ultimately the radical depopulation they intend. It's not about the money at all. That's only a tool, and they can print all they want out of nothing. It's about total control and genocide. The longer we take realizing that, the more of a head start they have. Why not use the time a bit more intelligently.

Richard

Hey gang, I've seen a number of the exchanges going to and fro between Jerry and Weston... seems that Weston is saying that if one is not subject to tax, then, there is no liability, if there is no liability, then, there is no reason to participate in any part of the tax scheme. I agree because that is well-form axiomatic principle. And this axiomatic principle is where I disagree with Pete on his misconstruction of sertain sections of the Code... My point is fairly simle... if you want to get out of the system... BE out of the system... that means you need to learn the Code to the extent that the pertinent sections you read, study and rely on explain (in plain language) that you are not subject to the tax scheme... and that includes withholding forms (W-4) and reporting forms (W-9) -- and once that is accomplished... you're done. See section 3402(n) of the Code for starters... I'm here to tell'ya, THE ANSWER IS IN THE CODE AND REGS FOLKS... IT IS NEITHER IN PETE'S BOOK NOR IN THE DISCUSSION GROUP... BUT... I have learned enough to know that if you file... you are in the reach of the system. You're lucky if you get a refund of money you should have never paid... I'd cite the section, and the case law on the point, but Weston may be a government plant and I'd rather he look it up himself or his supervisors. Gary

* I have since been banned from the Warrior group as well, so I was unable to reply to those last several posts by these nice, caring, cult-like subjects.

[ASITStands]

Welcome back, Weston! You did a good job opposing the other warriors' hypnotic focus on 'Pete-Hendrickson-never-makes-a-mistake-and-actually-won-all-his-cases-thank-you.'

There's hope for you if you can see that losing in Court is the ultimate test of Pete's theory.

Congratulations for seeing that bit of truth. As 'CaptainKickback' stated, none of us here like paying taxes (especially in light of an uncontrolled Congress and Administration), and we'll do our best to be honest with you, help where we can and promise not to kick you too hard.

Just don't come in here expecting to change too many minds! You might find yourself doing the changing, and that's 'ok,' but more likely, you'll grow in your own knowledge of law.

That's not bad! It can only help you in the future. Not all of us are attorneys or accountants. Some of us simply work with People who oppose themselves and help them figure it all out.

Figuring it out doesn't mean agreeing with any one poster on this forum. It's coming to your own understanding of law, statute, code, case law, etc. and moving forward.

Don't get bogged down in arguments about minutia, and don't fail to enjoy the humor.

Best wishes in your struggle to understand what's happened and where you're heading.

[Nikki]

Weston:

Welcome back.

To the extent possible, you get a honeymoon here. Direct personal attacks, grossly insulting remarks, and the like will be pruned until such time as you decide you want to enter the snake pit.

Also, why not open a separate thread to discuss your tax issues and situation and see if anyone can offer some positive advice.

[Imalawman]

I have to say, many of the CTCers seem to be coming around. Its nice to see, hopefully for most its not too late. Unfortunately, some will have to pay the piper no matter what they decide to do now.

Weston, we've stressed this many times, but we mainly focus here on what the law is, not what it ought to be. I think you'll find every veteran poster on this forum will say that you must pay taxes on private sector wages - but not everyone will agree on just how much of those wages should be paid in taxes or if any of them should be.

For instance, I'd like to see drastic overall reductions in the income tax and the enactment of a VAT. (I shall publicly flog anyone who writes or says VAT tax) So, while you should feel free to say that income taxes ought not to exist, don't expect sympathy for wrongly stating what the law currently is.

[ASITStands]

Vich tax is Vat?

Ok. Ok. I'll quit now. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the difference between a VAT and NST (and throw in some discussion of the Fair Tax) but make it a different thread.

Ok? Ok.

[Weston White]

Weston:

Welcome back.

To the extent possible, you get a honeymoon here. Direct personal attacks, grossly insulting remarks, and the like will be pruned until such time as you decide you want to enter the snake pit.

Also, why not open a separate thread to discuss your tax issues and situation and see if anyone can offer some positive advice.

Wow, who knew that Nikki had a soft side?

[Famspear]

We all have a soft side.

Welcome back, Weston.

[Weston White]

"The accuracy of that research and analysis is then incontrovertibly confirmed by an unending series of real-world, actual events, starting with my series of historic accomplishments..." Peter E. (Blowhard) Hendrickson

I was just looking at your sig, and thought, you all should make a designated category that would serve as a sort of wall of shame, where you could keep track of certain types of accomplishments, such as all those of Hendrickson. At the very least it would sort of funny. A place were you could include the specific dates, dispositions, links to the case, claim, or documentation, etc., along with their “accomplishments”. And to be fair this would include their before and after.

[RyanMcC]

I was just looking at your sig, and thought, you all should make a designated category that would serve as a sort of wall of shame, where you could keep track of certain types of accomplishments, such as all those of Hendrickson. At the very least it would sort of funny. A lace were you could include the specific dates, dispositions, links to the case, claim, or documentation, etc., along with their “accomplishments”. And to be fair this would include their before and after.

There already is, it needs to be updated though:

http://www.quatlosers.com/

[LPC]

I was just looking at your sig, and thought, you all should make a designated category that would serve as a sort of wall of shame, where you could keep track of certain types of accomplishments, such as all those of Hendrickson. At the very least it would sort of funny. A lace were you could include the specific dates, dispositions, links to the case, claim, or documentation, etc., along with their “accomplishments”. And to be fair this would include their before and after.

There already is, it needs to be updated though:

http://www.quatlosers.com/

And there's also "Tax Protester Dossiers," which attempts to match the talk with the walk (so to speak).

Now, having posted to this thread, I feel led to offer some comments on Weston's recent experiences and to try to draw the line between mawkishness (we love you man) and snarkiness (we told you so). Here's my shot:

There is a great diversity of political and legal opinions on this forum. But I think that all of us would love to live in a world in which regulation was not necessary, police were not necessary, courts were not necessary, national defense were not necessary, and taxes were not needed to pay for regulation, police, courts, and defense. And I think that all of us would hate to live in a world in which there were no government at all, the strong preyed on the weak, and life was nasty, brutish, and short.

So we live in a world of compromise, in which we struggle with decisions about how much freedom to give up, and how much order to impose.

As Kurt Vonnegut once put it: Welcome to the monkey house.

(Please leave your absolutes at the door.)

[grixit]

Weston:

What they said.

Most of think some things should be different, in taxes. But none of us try to deny how things are in reality.

In reality, the law is that if you are an american (regardless of location), or you work in America (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof), and you get paid, it's income. It doesn't matter what word games you use, calling it something else doesn't matter. That is the positive category, income. There are no other positive categories, no privileges, no federal connections, no finite list of occupations that need to be fullfilled. There are no words with secret meanings: includes means includes. Definition of income: they paid you.

And in the absence of applicable deductions or exemptions, you have to pay income tax on it.

Fortunately, there are in fact, deductions and exemptions. Those are the negative categories. They reduce the amount of income that you have to pay taxes on. Income - deductions and exemptions = taxable income.

Now there are lots of different kinds of deductions, and that's where the complexity comes in. Just understand, the purpose of the complexity is to reduce taxes, you are always free not to take them, in which case you'll pay more but spend less time on your return. There's a lot of room for reform there, but as i said, this is about how things are, not how they should be.

Thing is, any argument about taxes that starts by denying these facts-- like saying people with "Sovereign" tattoed on their butts are exempt, or that income doesn't count if you call it "value received", or that having your paychecks made out to a church whose pastor is your pet platypus makes it somehow not yours-- is like starting an argument about weather by saying that clouds are made of cotton fluff. It's just wrong from the get go.

That being said, welcome to the mosh pit.