"free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

"free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Famspear »

Losthorizoner "free2live" has posted this long analysis, apparently from "Pablo." I'm thinking that Pablo was banned by Pete a while back. If my memory is correct, then "free2live" is skating on thin ice.
Right or wrong, Mr. Hendrickson was convicted of knowingly filing false documents with the IRS.

When you read the IRS’ complaint, it specifically points out that Mr. Hendrickson received Forms W-2 from his employer but choose to declare $0 wages earned even in the face of evidence that he did in fact earn wages. And that’s an interesting point I’d like to explore. How was the DOJ able to declare that Mr. Hendrickson did in fact earn wages even though his first-hand sworn testimony was just the opposite? Well, let’s look at his history (it may be incomplete but I believe the essentials are covered).

History

Mr. Hendrickson started using Form 4852 to correct his “payer’s” Forms W-2. In Mr. Hendrickson’s published Forms 4852 (on his web site), he stated that he didn’t earn wages as defined in 26 U.S.C. §§ 3121 and 3401. He wasn’t an employee and didn’t work for an employer. For sure, during 2002 and 2003, the DOJ didn’t believe this for a second. And they took him to court over it.

In the “flurry of motions” (as Dr. Graves likes to call them), one of the items filed by Mr. Hendrickson’s company was a declaration by Ms. Halbrook, the Payroll/Human Resources Manager. She basically stated that her company paid Mr. Hendrickson wages. The IRS moved for summary judgment shortly after this because, in their view, there were no facts in contest. The IRS met their burden under 26 U.S.C. § 6201(d), that when a taxpayer provides a reasonable dispute to any item on an information return, the IRS must bring credible and probative evidence in addition to the information return. Well, Ms. Halbrook was that credible evidence. As for probative, a quick view in the dictionary says, “serving to prove, substantiating.” Now, if I were on the jury and Mr. Hendrickson claims he made no wages but the company writes a document stating otherwise, I’d like to hear from an authorized representative of the company to state what they believe (true or false).

Imaginary Direct by the DOJ

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, did your company pay Mr. Hendrickson wages?”

MH: “Yes.”

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are the amounts you paid based on the business records of your current company?”

MH: “Yes.”

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, do you have any knowledge or belief that these records are incorrect?”

MH: “No.”

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are the amounts you paid Mr. Hendrickson accurate?”

MH: “Yes.”

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are the Forms W-2, which your company made in the course of its regular business activities, accurate in every detail?”

MH: “Yes.”

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are you the custodian of these records now?”

MH: “Yes.”

Mr. Hendrickson’s Response

Mr. Hendrickson’s appeal stated that Ms. Halbrook had no personal knowledge of his activities since she didn’t work there when he worked and she cannot attest to the accuracy or the veracity of the records upon which the assignment of wages was made. Mr. Hendrickson believes her declaration is the IRS’ sole evidence. However, what I didn’t see, and this is where things are unclear, is where Mr. Hendrickson denies the six presumptions present on a Form W-2:

· The form itself (a “Receipt for Employees”, 26 U.S.C. § 6051) presumes that he engaged in a taxable activity

· The form has the name of an employer who an employee provides services and receives remuneration of any kind, typically wages (26 U.S.C. § 3401(d))

· The employer is a source of gross income (26 U.S.C. § 61)

· The employer is a source of taxable income (26 U.S.C. § 63)

· The form has the name of an employee who provided services to an employer for remuneration of any kind, typically wages (26 U.S.C. § 3401(c)).

· The form has wages, the amount received by an employee from his employer for services performed (26 U.S.C. § 3401(a)).

In addition, the form is internally consistent and reinforces the existing presumptions: federal income tax withheld, Social Security tax withheld, and Medicare tax withheld. Withholding (26 U.S.C. § 3402) is defined as amounts withheld as taxes from an employee’s wages by his employer. Thus, if a person declares he had withholding, he was necessarily presumed to be in an employer-employee relationship. In the case of FICA taxes, Social Security and Medicare withholding also presumes an employer who provided employment for wages to an employee. Without providing a complete rebuttal of ALL these presumptions (the six presumptions above + the withholding presumptions), the DOJ can assert that wages were paid, whether they were in fact wages or not.

District Court Decision

With the seemingly un-rebutted declaration from Ms. Halbrook, the court ruled that there were no facts in contest and awarded summary judgment to the IRS. This meant that the Forms W-2 and their contents were a judicial fact and the amounts were judicially determined to be true. The court instructed Mr. Hendrickson to make his prior year filings conform to the judicial findings of fact. That meant that his Form 4852 was no longer a valid submission. But what else is also true? Well, the six presumptions of the Form W-2 are now facts, not presumptions any more: Mr. Hendrickson engaged in a taxable activity, had an employer, had a source of gross income, had a source of taxable income, was an employee, and earned wages.

One of Mr. Hendrickson’s Potential Errors

Look at the title of the Form 4852: “Substitute for a W-2.” That means that in the absence of a W-2 or to correct a W-2, this form has the same weight and presumptions on it as a Form W-2. What’s worse, this form is submitted by the taxpayer himself. In effect, Mr. Hendrickson is saying to the IRS, “Don’t listen to my company. The W-2 is wrong. I engaged in a taxable activity because the Form 4852 says so. I had an employer because this form is correcting a Form W-2. My employer is a source of gross income and a source of taxable income. I am an employee (don’t believe me? Look! I had withholding.) And, I earned wages.” When Mr. Hendrickson declares $0 wages, which presumption is he rebutting? Does taxable activity relate to how much was paid or rather, what activity Mr. Hendrickson performed? If Mr. Hendrickson had withholding, how can he claim $0 wages? Is it possible to have earned ZERO wages and yet had hundreds or even thousands of dollars withheld from $0 wages? Is that a mathematical possibility that $0 wages x 7.65% = $1,000?

Knowingly Filing False Documents

Fast forward to the most recent criminal trial against Mr. Hendrickson. Since Mr. Hendrickson was offered an opportunity to conform his returns to judicial findings of fact, he could then be accused of knowingly filing false documents. In fact, this is exactly what the DOJ accuses Mr. Hendrickson of doing. In view of the judicial findings and the evidence on his employer’s Forms W-2, Mr. Hendrickson, according to the DOJ, chose instead to file false and fraudulent Forms 4852 claiming he didn’t earn any wages.

Motions for Person and Others

Mr. Hendrickson appealed the decision for a variety of reasons, one of which was that he wasn’t a person as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7343, Person. “The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.” Mr. Hendrickson could not use this argument because, as you see, a Person includes an employee(!) and by judicial findings in his prior trial (res judicata), Mr. Hendrickson was found to be an employee, hence a Person as defined here.

Summary

Mr. Hendrickson was precluded from arguing he wasn’t an employee by res judicata. He was also precluded from claiming he wasn’t an employee for the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 7343. However, one issue that I believe remained uncontested was that Mr. Hendrickson did not adequately rebut presumptions on the Forms W-2, but rather, reinforced them with the submission of his Form 4852, which left many presumptions unchallenged. As a result, the DOJ, in a real sense (and a deplorable statement about our current system of justice) had to take advantage of the situation.

Pablo Rodriguez
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 03ca#24809

Pablo's "analysis" is of course riddled with errors, not the least of which is his argument that Hendrickson was precluded, in his criminal case, from arguing the "employee" issue by the doctrine of res judicata.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Imalawman »

True there are many errors, but its actually coherent in many respects. Nice for a change to see a least a modicum of sanity. Of course, such acts of disloyalty will not be tolerated for long....
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

One issue 'Pablo' does manage to raise (perhaps unwittingly) which often escapes the TP crowd is the situation the employer faces in these 'bringing-a-knife-to-a-gunfight' contests.

When someone's cheese has slid off the cracker and they send one of those goofy letters declaring they're not subject to withholding they're basically asking/demanding the recipient join them in a conspiracy to defraud the Federal Government.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Famspear »

Pablo wrote:The IRS met their burden under 26 U.S.C. § 6201(d), that when a taxpayer provides a reasonable dispute to any item on an information return, the IRS must bring credible and probative evidence in addition to the information return. Well, Ms. Halbrook was that credible evidence.
That part about Halbrook's testimony being the "credible evidence" may be essentially correct. Pablo is of course committing heresy from the viewpoint of Hendrickson. Halbrook's testimony could nevertheless be "some evidence," whether Hendrickson likes it or not.
Mr. Hendrickson’s appeal stated that Ms. Halbrook had no personal knowledge of his activities since she didn’t work there when he worked and she cannot attest to the accuracy or the veracity of the records upon which the assignment of wages was made. Mr. Hendrickson believes her declaration is the IRS’ sole evidence.
I'm a bit rusty, but I would say that there is no requirement that Halbrook have personal knowledge of Hendrickson's "activities." Halbrook apparently was testifying about her knowledge of the company records.
However, what I didn’t see, and this is where things are unclear, is where Mr. Hendrickson denies the six presumptions present on a Form W-2....
I don't know that it's technically correct to refer to the information on the W-2 as creating legal "presumptions." The W-2 is simply "evidence."
The form itself (a “Receipt for Employees”, 26 U.S.C. § 6051) presumes that he engaged in a taxable activity
Here, Pablo is wrong; he repeats the "taxable activity" mantra that is so beloved by Hendrickson and His Heroes. There is no legal requirement of a "taxable activity," and no presumption in a W-2 about a "taxable activity." The issue is whether the recipient realized income, not whether he engaged in an "activity". (It is true enough that "working for compensation" is an "activity," but that's a separate point.)
In addition, the form is internally consistent and reinforces the existing presumptions: federal income tax withheld, Social Security tax withheld, and Medicare tax withheld. Withholding (26 U.S.C. § 3402) is defined as amounts withheld as taxes from an employee’s wages by his employer. Thus, if a person declares he had withholding, he was necessarily presumed to be in an employer-employee relationship. In the case of FICA taxes, Social Security and Medicare withholding also presumes an employer who provided employment for wages to an employee. Without providing a complete rebuttal of ALL these presumptions (the six presumptions above + the withholding presumptions), the DOJ can assert that wages were paid, whether they were in fact wages or not.
Except for Pablo's use of the terms "presumed," "presumption," etc., I think that part of the analysis is not bad.
With the seemingly un-rebutted declaration from Ms. Halbrook, the court ruled that there were no facts in contest and awarded summary judgment to the IRS. This meant that the Forms W-2 and their contents were a judicial fact and the amounts were judicially determined to be true. The court instructed Mr. Hendrickson to make his prior year filings conform to the judicial findings of fact. That meant that his Form 4852 was no longer a valid submission. But what else is also true? Well, the six presumptions of the Form W-2 are now facts, not presumptions any more: Mr. Hendrickson engaged in a taxable activity, had an employer, had a source of gross income, had a source of taxable income, was an employee, and earned wages.
Again, except for the use of the terms "presumption" and "activity," that part is not too bad.
One of Mr. Hendrickson’s Potential Errors

Look at the title of the Form 4852: “Substitute for a W-2.” That means that in the absence of a W-2 or to correct a W-2, this form has the same weight and presumptions on it as a Form W-2. What’s worse, this form is submitted by the taxpayer himself. In effect, Mr. Hendrickson is saying to the IRS, “Don’t listen to my company. The W-2 is wrong. I engaged in a taxable activity because the Form 4852 says so. I had an employer because this form is correcting a Form W-2. My employer is a source of gross income and a source of taxable income. I am an employee (don’t believe me? Look! I had withholding.) And, I earned wages.” When Mr. Hendrickson declares $0 wages, which presumption is he rebutting? Does taxable activity relate to how much was paid or rather, what activity Mr. Hendrickson performed? If Mr. Hendrickson had withholding, how can he claim $0 wages? Is it possible to have earned ZERO wages and yet had hundreds or even thousands of dollars withheld from $0 wages? Is that a mathematical possibility that $0 wages x 7.65% = $1,000?
The above is a common sense approach (something foreign to most of Hendrickson's followers) and, except for the references to "activity" and "presumption", is not too bad.
Knowingly Filing False Documents

Fast forward to the most recent criminal trial against Mr. Hendrickson. Since Mr. Hendrickson was offered an opportunity to conform his returns to judicial findings of fact, he could then be accused of knowingly filing false documents. In fact, this is exactly what the DOJ accuses Mr. Hendrickson of doing. In view of the judicial findings and the evidence on his employer’s Forms W-2, Mr. Hendrickson, according to the DOJ, chose instead to file false and fraudulent Forms 4852 claiming he didn’t earn any wages.

Motions for Person and Others

Mr. Hendrickson appealed the decision for a variety of reasons, one of which was that he wasn’t a person as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7343, Person. “The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.” Mr. Hendrickson could not use this argument because, as you see, a Person includes an employee(!) and by judicial findings in his prior trial (res judicata), Mr. Hendrickson was found to be an employee, hence a Person as defined here.
That part is wrong. In Hendrickson's criminal trial, I do not believe the findings of fact from his earlier civil tax trial would have a preclusive effect in the criminal trial. (Incidentally, the narrower term, if it applied, would be "issue preclusion," or "collateral estoppel," though of course some commentators do use the term res judicata to include both "claim preclusion" and "issue preclusion".)
Summary

Mr. Hendrickson was precluded from arguing he wasn’t an employee by res judicata. He was also precluded from claiming he wasn’t an employee for the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 7343. However, one issue that I believe remained uncontested was that Mr. Hendrickson did not adequately rebut presumptions on the Forms W-2, but rather, reinforced them with the submission of his Form 4852, which left many presumptions unchallenged.
As noted above, that part is wrong. The doctrine of res judicata (or, more narrowly, collateral estoppel) would not apply to those arguments in the criminal case.
As a result, the DOJ, in a real sense (and a deplorable statement about our current system of justice) had to take advantage of the situation.

Pablo Rodriguez
I would argue that Pablo's analysis is riddled with errors with respect to his repeated references to "activity" and "presumption" and "res judicata". However, Pablo's commentary does contain a "disturbing" amount of common sense that might rattle some of Pete's followers.

:wink:

I'm pretty rusty on some of this stuff. I think it would be interesting to see wserra, and others with extensive trial experience, do a quick review of Pablo's "analysis."
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Nikki

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Nikki »

Pablo is still inder the BlowHard's spell concerning "wages."

He (and the rest of the loserheads) can't grasp that wages don't matter.

INCOME matters, whether it's wages, salary, fees, whatever.
Harvester

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Harvester »

If you ever get annoyed, look at me I'm self-employed

This is probably the best way out of the Income Tax Scam. If one works self-employed without info returns (W2, 1099, etc.) which create the automatic presumption/evidence of income, the IRS would have to rely on a different nexus/contract to say that worker was in an equity contract relationship with the federal municipal corporation. And they're loath to do that.
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Harvester wrote:If you ever get annoyed, look at me I'm self-employed

This is probably the best way out of the Income Tax Scam. If one works self-employed without info returns (W2, 1099, etc.) which create the automatic presumption/evidence of income, the IRS would have to rely on a different nexus/contract to say that worker was in an equity contract relationship with the federal municipal corporation. And they're loath to do that.
You are either the world's biggest idiot, or the world's biggest wiseass. If you are self-employed, provide services or goods to someone else, and receive something in return, YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME.

But, of course, you are too much of a gutless coward to provide the proof for which we have repeatedly challenged you.
Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Wed May 05, 2010 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Nikki

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Nikki »

Harvester wrote:If you ever get annoyed, look at me I'm self-employed
He's actually an independant contractor for Ed Norton.
Harvester

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Harvester »

No. Providing goods or services in return for something DOES NOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME, in itself. We all have a common-law right to make money without direct taxation (unless apportioned, but that's rare). I make plenty of moolah but precious little income. Don't tell me you've been taken in by all the Decepticons here too. As for proof, well for starters, there's me and also look to those most ridiculed here. Their books /websites are a good trail to start with.

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

Phil Hart's Constitutional Income goes into the history and intent of Congress & The People at the time:
"In examining the history of the debate and ratification of the 16th Amendment, we will also see that there is no evidence upon which the government can rely for their claim that the American People desired to have their wages & salaries taxed. No evidence can be found in the law journals on political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record, nor in any of the newspapers of record of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages & salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is "wholly without foundation."
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Famspear »

Harvester wrote:No. Providing goods or services in return for something DOES NOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME, in itself. We all have a common-law right to make money without direct taxation (unless apportioned, but that's rare). I make plenty of moolah but precious little income. Don't tell me you've been taken in by all the Decepticons here too. As for proof, well for starters, there's me and also look to those most ridiculed here. Their books /websites are a good trail to start with.

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

Phil Hart's Constitutional Income goes into the history and intent of Congress & The People at the time:
"In examining the history of the debate and ratification of the 16th Amendment, we will also see that there is no evidence upon which the government can rely for their claim that the American People desired to have their wages & salaries taxed. No evidence can be found in the law journals on political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record, nor in any of the newspapers of record of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages & salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is "wholly without foundation."
Providing goods or services does not create income. That's correct. But if you receive anything of value to provide services, you have realized income under the Internal Revenue Code (unless you come under a statutory exception, etc.).

You're still citing Peter Hendrickson and Phil Hart. That's not acceptable.

We're talking about tax law, not the ravings of a couple of know-nothings. Phil Hart is wrong. Hendrickson is wrong, Harvester is wrong.

Now, go look for a court case where someone argued Hendrickson's crap, and that someone WON in court on that argument.

Now, go look for a court case where someone argued Hart's crap, and that someone WON in court on that argument.

Now, go look for a court case where someone argued Harvester's crap, and that someone WON in court on that argument.

Fool's errand.....
8)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Gregg »

Harvester wrote:If you ever get annoyed, look at me I'm self-employed

This is probably the best way out of the Income Tax Scam. If one works self-employed without info returns (W2, 1099, etc.) which create the automatic presumption/evidence of income, the IRS would have to rely on a different nexus/contract to say that worker was in an equity contract relationship with the federal municipal corporation. And they're loath to do that.
And you can get away with it for years, because for the most part people who live this way are too piss poor to go after. Stay "off the grid" as some call it, of course, chances are you'll never own a house (damn hard to get a mortgage without a tax return, and when you try, you're very likely to find that the banks give the same definition to "wages, taxes and other compensation" as the IRS, so unless you're rich besides (in which case the IRS would come after you, that's worth their time) be prepared to rent...also, most jobs willing to pay you under the table or off the books have wonderful retirement plans, basically "we'll pay you as long as you can drag your sorry behind in and do the ditch digging, when you can't, you're on your own". Good news though, if not ethnically, at least economically you're in the same class of "non federal connected private contractors" as illegal aliens, so enjoy the hot dogs at Home Depot on your break. Of course, in order to really avoid paying taxes, you can't use things like banks, investment companies, you can't use any credit because the IRS can use any spending you do to pay it back as an assumption of hidden income. That's okay, you don't mind having your most valuable asset something that costs about a months pay on the "will work for food" tour makes.
And then of course we have the late bloomers, guys who have managed to get very good jobs like airline pilots, make good money, great retirement etc... but then they discover a con artist like Pete and go nuts and blow it all. You have a few on LH right now discussing how to get the government to take every dime they have in penalties, interest and back taxes and doing a little mutual masturbation with themselves about going after the airline they work for, which will likely get them fired.

So, Harvester, you can proudly wear your "I pay no income tax" t-shirt all you want, but the jokes on you because anyone with more sense than a post in the ground knows that the T shirt may be the best clothing you own, kept in a cardboard box in your place under the fire escape for special occasions, like when you take a greyhound bus to pay pilgrimage to your Idiot Hero, David Van Pelt. And that might be the most exciting trip you ever take in your life, to boot.

It's so terrible that I and the majority of posters here are slaves to the government, writing all down like that makes me regret I don't get to experience the same freedom you and other tax protesters do.

not

:mrgreen:
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Harvester wrote:No. Providing goods or services in return for something DOES NOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME, in itself. We all have a common-law right to make money without direct taxation (unless apportioned, but that's rare).
There is no such common-law right. And the income tax is an excise, not a direct tax.
"In examining the history of the debate and ratification of the 16th Amendment, we will also see that there is no evidence upon which the government can rely for their claim that the American People desired to have their wages & salaries taxed. No evidence can be found in the law journals on political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record, nor in any of the newspapers of record of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages & salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is "wholly without foundation."
This is pure garbage. First of all, wages and salaries were taxed beginning with the first federal income tax act in 1861. Since the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1881, the 16th Amendment wasn't needed to tax wages and salaries -- the power to do so already existed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Second, nothing in the Pollock decision affected the validity of a tax on wages and salaries -- in fact, the Court implicitly recognized that such a tax was valid. Third, the 1913 Revenue Act included a provision for withholding taxes on wages and salaries, so it can hardly be argued that Congress didn't intend to tax wages and salaries. Fourth, Hart is an idiot whose arguments failed in court and resulted in sanctions of over $20,000. See http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/phil-hart

The bottom line is that you have no constitutional, statutory, or judicial support for your baseless claims. The best you can come up with is a crank who was shot down big time by the courts. Whom will you cite next, Irwin Schiff?
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by jg »

Harvester wrote:If you ever get annoyed, look at me I'm self-employed

This is probably the best way out of the Income Tax Scam. If one works self-employed without info returns (W2, 1099, etc.) which create the automatic presumption/evidence of income, the IRS would have to rely on a different nexus/contract to say that worker was in an equity contract relationship with the federal municipal corporation. And they're loath to do that.
There is no "federal municipal corporation" or any "equity contract relationship" that has anything to do with income tax law.

The IRS can and will, if so inclined, use one of several methods to determine your income.
See, for example, Cash Audit Techniques Guide at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 39,00.html

They are not at all "loath to do that".
You just have not been chosen to be examined. Perhaps you will be in the future.
Not getting caught (yet) is not at all to your credit.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by LPC »

Cpt Banjo wrote:
Harvester wrote:No. Providing goods or services in return for something DOES NOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME, in itself. We all have a common-law right to make money without direct taxation (unless apportioned, but that's rare).
There is no such common-law right..
I was looking at some crap that someone posted to LH, and found the following citation:

"Right to earn a living is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the constitution." City of Louisville et al. v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2d 248.

I couldn't find a copy of that actual (Ky.) decision, but found a later citation (and paraphrase) from an Alabama court:

"The right to earn a livelihood is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights but it does not operate to relieve from taxation as against an expressed grant of power. City of Louisville v. Sebree, 308 Ky. 420, 214 S.W.2d 248."

Estes v. City of Gadsden, 94 So. 2d 744, 750 (Ala. 1957) (emphasis added).

Funny that the LH Loser didn't mention that last part.

And the Estes court immediately went on to say that:

"It will be recalled that in the Smalley case, supra [253 Ala. 663, 46 So.2d 203], this court used the following language, 'Because the employment is for lawful gain and is a natural and inherent right does not exempt it from being a taxable event.'"

But those are the decision that Hendrickson et al. don't want their marks to know about.

The entire "CtC" house of cards is built on inferences from ambiguous quotations taken out of context, while the thousands of court decisions that directly refute CtC are totally ignored.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by LPC »

News flash:
Doreen wrote:Peter wrote an extensive reply to Pablo last night. Rather than posting imaginary situations, stick to the facts. Anyone could have attended the "trial", then would not have to speculate as to the events that transpired. A few did, and could actually give an accurate report. Additionally, Peter has posted a great deal of information (including transcripts) in the newsletter, if you're interested enough to get the facts, as opposed to aimlessly guessing what might have been going on. If you really want to comment intelligently, I'd suggest you get on PACER and read all of the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of filings before you make yourself look foolish.

Get your facts straight. Don't be a distraction
(Emphasis in original.)

You know, a lot of the regulars here spend a great deal of time checking facts and tracking down court decisions and docket entries and records of transcripts, only to be dissed by air-heads who make assertions without any citations to any support whatsoever. I used to think that it was just a matter of tax protester airheads treating everyone else differently, but after reading Doreen's comment, above, I finally realized that they do it to themselves and each other as well.

Doreen's response to Pablo, quoted above, is a totally dismissive, unsubstantiated, and non-responsive response. And it appears to be normal and routine. She responded to Pablo in the same way that she would respond to one of us, in the same way that Hendrickson would have responded to one of us, and in the same way that Harvester would respond (and has responded) to one of us.

Tax deniers aren't patronizing, dismissive, fuzzy, flaky, illogical, unfocused, and non-responsive when they deal with normal, logical people, but they're that way with each other as well. It's not a strategy, or a tactic, or a defense mechanism; it's who they are. It's not a philosophy; it's a character defect.

Remember that the next time you're drafting a response to "Harvester."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Cathulhu »

Even a self-employed ditchdigger gets caught when he's stupid as Harv, and as I sit on my patio, sipping my tea while my gardeners work, enjoying my retirement immensely, and knowing my taxes are done by someone who trained IRS auditors, hey, it's why I'm not always online. I have fun things to do, cats to feed, cheesecakes to bake. The lilacs are superb this year.

Harv, you pathetic creature, it's probable that most anyone with enough smarts to spot the extraordinary idiocy of your arguments could easily buy and sell you. Cheap.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold
bmielke

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by bmielke »

Cpt Banjo wrote:
There is no such common-law right.
I am not disagreeing with you, just curious...

What about the right to Privacy, it is not mentioned in the Constitution but has been constructed by the courts from several other rights.

What about the right to a lawyer, again not mentioned, but constructed by the courts.

Wouldn't they be "Common Law Rights"? or does that phrase have a specific meaning I am not aware of?
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

bmielke wrote:
Cpt Banjo wrote:
There is no such common-law right.
I am not disagreeing with you, just curious...

What about the right to Privacy, it is not mentioned in the Constitution but has been constructed by the courts from several other rights.

What about the right to a lawyer, again not mentioned, but constructed by the courts.

Wouldn't they be "Common Law Rights"? or does that phrase have a specific meaning I am not aware of?
The leading Supreme Court case on the right to privacy is Griswold v. Connecticut, from 1965. In the words of Justice Douglas, writing for the majority of the Court, the right to privacy can be found in the "penumbras and emanations" of other Constitutional rights; and Justice Goldberg, in his concurring opinion, specifically used the Ninth Amendment to support the Court's holding. Justices Harlan and White, in concurring opinions, said that the right to privacy flows from the Due Process Clause. Justices Black and Stewart dissented.

As for the right to a lawyer, it is specifically mentioned in the Sixth Amendment. Successive court decisions, most famously Gideon v. Wainwright from 1963, have defined and expanded the conditions under which this right begins and ends.
Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Thu May 06, 2010 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Cpt Banjo »

What he said.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Harvester

Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson

Post by Harvester »

You know, it's as if I can tell how warm or cold I am by the number and vigor of denouncing responses.

"That's not acceptable"! Yes Fammie, calm down I know that's not acceptable to you & your pimp. You're paid to direct everyone back into the taxpayer pen - yawn. Doesn't matter what's acceptable to you - I'm a free man. As for winning in court, there's a small handful of winners, but generally you're correct here. This thing is very hard to win in the courtroom. What you fail to grasp is that the best scams (Federal Reserve/IRS) are run in partnership with government. These days what often passes for justice is actually judicial corruption.
Cpt Banjo wrote: And the income tax is an excise, not a direct tax.
I agree. Careful though, I don't think Famspear & LPC agree with you.
Gregg wrote:It's so terrible that I and the majority of posters here are slaves to the government, writing it all down like that makes me regret I don't get to experience the same freedom you and other tax protesters do.
I'll pray for y'all.

Yes LPC, Congress can tax our inalienable right to earn a livelihood, but it must be apportioned (per the Constitution). They have done such a direct tax only a small number of times and our present Income Tax is not among them.

Cathulhu, I'm enjoying my tea & scones as well in my lovely home. I have plenty available for the revenue scammers you keep saying will visit me. And here, the honeysuckle is superb this year.

Oh, I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention David Zuniga, self-employed engineer and 11-year nontaxpayer.