Hendrickson losses just keep mounting

[Imalawman]

We do not establish a legislature, and delegate authority thereto, in order to guess at the meaning of its products or learn of their requirements and nuances only once charged with their violation, and in jeopardy of life, liberty or property.

With a run-on sentence like that, he has to be right. Seriously, that is atrocious.

[Quixote]

It is axiomatic (and the law) that terms and phrases within a statute for which definitions are provided DO NOT have their common meanings as used therein.

Thank you for confirming my statement.

[jg]

Let me know where to find Pete's explanation of his position in that document, because I'd sure like to read his own version of why the money he received from Personnel Management was not "wages."

His pay was not taxable because he said it is not.
See the affadavit on page 15 at http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson13.pdf

[Randall]

You're baiting me. This is how Pete begins his discussion of "includes":

The Law Means What It Says

[quotes from IRM and Black's]

It is axiomatic (and the law) that terms and phrases within a statute for which definitions are provided DO NOT have their common meanings as used therein.

How does he explain this statute:

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

26 USC 7701

[John J. Bulten]

Paul, we rely on the Constitutional context for words like income, source and derived.

Dan, I can only suspect that Pete was only stating his reasons for denying summary judgment, and that his full position statement would be moot if summary judgment were granted. Now here I am of course guessing because I have no more information than you.

It appears from the record that (as I said) Pete declined to state his full position to the court, because apparently he decided it was not necessary to support a motion for denial of summary judgment. He apparently felt denying the allegations was sufficient for the time being.

As I said, about court procedure I'm an amateur, even if I understand the law and CtC itself. Pete states his position quite fully in CtC, as above. You can read his own version there.

Lawman, it's a periodic sentence, not a run-on, this is a run-on.

Quixote, you charged Pete with "assuming that Congress never means what it says" when he "starts his discussion of the word 'includes'". I quoted that start: "The Law Means What It Says". Pete then pointed out that when Congress says a term's definition is given within the law, it means the term's definition is NOT given outside the law. If Congress were intending a defined term to have some other meaning than the meaning given, that's when it would NOT mean what it says. Your conclusion does not follow.

[John J. Bulten]

Randall, obviously "includes" does not have the common meaning, but has the meaning supplied by 7701(c). And terms defined with "includes" do not have the common meaning, but have the meaning supplied by all their defining clauses, plus other things interpretable as otherwise within the meaning supplied by all their defining clauses. (It cannot mean "plus other things interpretable as otherwise within the common meaning", because it says "meaning of the term defined".) The fuller explanation of this ambiguous proposition has already been thoroughly described. If you think your post contained enough evidence for a contradiction, please elaborate.

[LPC]

Randall, obviously "includes" does not have the common meaning, but has the meaning supplied by 7701(c).

Wrong again. The meaning of "includes" in 7701(c) *IS* the common meaning.

For example, one dictionary has explained the proper usage of “include” in this way:

Include is used most appropriately before an incomplete list of components: The ingredients of the cake include butter and egg yolk. If all the components are named, it is generally clearer to write: The ingredients are....

Usage note on “include,” American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Ed. 1985).

If you wish to disagree, you should try to find at least *ONE* dictionary or usage guide that says that "include" is COMMONLY used in a restrictive sense.

I've been issuing that challenge to tax idiots like yourself for years, and no one has ever been able to come up with a single example of any English language reference that agrees with their illiterate nonsense.

[Demosthenes]

Be nice Dan. Everyone here has to obey the posting rules. This includes moderators.

[LPC]

I can only suspect that Pete was only stating his reasons for denying summary judgment, and that his full position statement would be moot if summary judgment were granted.

A motion for summary judgment by a plaintiff is a motion for a decision ON THE MERITS, so of course Pete's arguments would become moot once the motion is granted, because he would have *LOST* on the merits.

Doesn't it strike you as a teensy weensy bit odd that your guru went into the tank and failed to dispute the substance of the issue before the court, which is whether the money he received from Personnel Management was "gross income"? Instead, he blew all sorts of smoke about jurisdiction and standing and the competence of witnesses, without ever disputing any material *fact,* and without every explaining why he was right as a matter of *law.*

Like Larken Rose, he took his legal argument out of contention and chose to defend himself with procedural and peripheral issues, avoiding what one would have expected to be the main issue. And, like Larken Rose, I suspect that he did it because he knew that if he presented his cherished theory to the court, it would be crushed like a grape.

Bottom line: He preferred to keep his ego intact by losing in a way that allows him to complain that the court mischaracterized rather than explain his position clearly and suffer an undeniable loss on the merits.

[John J. Bulten]

If you wish to disagree, you should try to find at least *ONE* dictionary or usage guide that says that "include" is COMMONLY used in a restrictive sense. I've been issuing that challenge to tax idiots like yourself for years, and no one has ever been able to come up with a single example of any English language reference that agrees with their illiterate nonsense.

Be nice Dan. Everyone here has to obey the posting rules. This includes moderators.

Thanks Demo!

Dan, your strawman challenge appears to pretend that there is only one expansive meaning of "includes", and that if I think IRC "includes" is not the expansive dictionary meaning, why I must think it is the restrictive meaning. However, I've said all along that IRC "includes" is expansive, but in a different way than the expansive dictionary meaning.

That there is more than one expansive definition of "includes" is obvious. The expansive dictionary meaning appears in the law as follows:

"Includes" and "including" are not limiting.

But IRC inclusion is purposefully defined differently:

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

And in FDIC legislation a completely different third expansive definition of "includes" appears:

(1) In general. - The terms "includes" and "including" shall not be construed more restrictively than the ordinary usage of such terms so as to exclude any other thing not referred to or described. (2) Rule of construction. - Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as creating any inference that the term "includes" or "including" in any other provision of Federal law may be deemed to exclude any other thing not referred to or described.

And you find my explanation of the law more confusing than the law itself?

Now, I grant that the dictionary meaning can be rephrased as follows: "The terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this dictionary shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the common meaning of the word being redefined." When you recover from your self-proclaimed myopia, you will see the difference between that restatement and the IRC definition.

[John J. Bulten]

More examples of IRC inclusion, as distinguished from dictionary inclusion, which demonstrate that Congress thinks the distinction is significant:

The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in subchapters I to IV of this chapter shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

The terms "includes" and "including" shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this chapter shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

[Demosthenes]

Thanks Demo!

You're welcome John. It's always nice when an argument is so painfully stupid that one can prove it wrong with a simple sentence.

"Includes" in my example is obviously expansive to anyone who isn't blinded by the koolaid.

[Cpt Banjo]

Thanks Demo!

You're welcome John. It's always nice when an argument is so painfully stupid that one can prove it wrong with a simple sentence.

"Includes" in my example is obviously expansive to anyone who isn't blinded by the koolaid.

Or as the court in U.S. v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1984) put it, the argument is "inane" and "a preposterous reading of the statute".

[Quixote]

Pete then pointed out that when Congress says a term's definition is given within the law, it means the term's definition is NOT given outside the law.

Which is different from what you posted above:

It is axiomatic (and the law) that terms and phrases within a statute for which definitions are provided DO NOT have their common meanings as used therein.

but is equally wrong.

Pete starts with his assumption, that words defined within a statute mean something different within the statute than they do in normal usage. He then notes that the obvious interpretation of 7701(c) is that "includes" will have its normal meaning. That can't be right, says he, because, according to his axiom, i.e., his assumption, Congress must have meant something else. The more obvious explanation, that his axiom is wrong, seems never to have occurred to him.

A less obvious explanation, but more likely than Pete's, is that Congress did not define "includes" in the IRC. 7701(c) is clearly not a definition, of "includes" or any other word. If one did not know the meaning of "includes", one would not learn it from 7701(c). 7701(c) is more accurately described as a disambiguation, clarifying which connotation of "includes" is used within the IRC. The section caption for 7701(c), "Definitions", has, as we all know, no legal significance.

[Brian Rookard]

Paul, we rely on the Constitutional context for words like income, source and derived.

And the first principle for construing the Constitution is that the words are used in their common, everyday sense.

[Paul]

Paul, we rely on the Constitutional context for words like income, source and derived.

So if a word is defined in a statute, it can't have its common meaning. And if it isn't defined, it has to have a meaning taken from the context of the constitution (which is the ONLY source of authority for federal laws), and can't have its common meaning.

Since Dan can't say it, I will: You're a moron.

[John J. Bulten]

Thanks Demo!

You're welcome John. It's always nice when an argument is so painfully stupid that one can prove it wrong with a simple sentence.

"Includes" in my example is obviously expansive to anyone who isn't blinded by the [Kool-Aid®].

Touché.

It's good that the stupid argument you're demolishing (that IRC "includes" is restrictive) is not mine.

[Florida]

Thanks Demo!

You're welcome John. It's always nice when an argument is so painfully stupid that one can prove it wrong with a simple sentence.

"Includes" in my example is obviously expansive to anyone who isn't blinded by the [Kool-Aid®].

Touché.

It's good that the stupid argument you're demolishing (that IRC "includes" is restrictive) is not mine.

You still have some yolk dripping off your eyebrow.

[Paul]

Quote:

So when Section 61 defines gross income to mean "all income from whatever source derived," and does not define "all", "income," "source", or "derived," where does that leave you?

861, of course!

861 doesn't define "all", "income," "source", or "derived." All it does is tell you the rules to determine IF your income (not defined) is derived (not defined) from a source (not defined) that is within the US. [/quote]

[Quixote]

Brian,

Showing that tax protestors want to live here, enjoy the benefits of living here, but they really don't want to pay for those benefits. In the end, it comes down to tax protestor greed.

Don't see the connection between wanting to live here (in freedom) and paying income tax. We did OK without it until the Civil War, didn't we?

Yeah, but if the southern states hadn't been so reasonable about those high tariffs, things could have gotten ugly.