2d Motion for Contempt against Pete and Doreen Hendrickson

[Pottapaug1938]

Pete writes that it is ridiculous for him to conclude that he is wrong about what the law is simply because a judge ruled against him. That illustrates his ineptitude. The fact that a judge rules against is the very proof that you are in fact wrong about what the law is. The judge's ruling is the law. You may still feel that your interpretation is the correct one, and that the judge did not come to the correct conclusion, however, you may not correctly assert that the judge's ruling isn't the law. It is the law until the legislature or a higher court set forth different law. Why can't TPs understand this!? They cannot distinguish between moral "rightness" and what the law is. Two very different things.

I'm sure that Petey thinks that the judges rule against him only because they are corrupt/scared of the IRS/Klingons/fans of the Washington Nationals/whatever; and deep down, they know that he is right on the law, so therefore Petey feels justified in trying to continue to push his cr*p on us.

[Famspear]

Pete writes that it is ridiculous for him to conclude that he is wrong about what the law is simply because a judge ruled against him....

Well, Pete should point out to us that the judge is only a lawyer with many years of formal training and experience in the law. After all, when it comes to understanding the law, there's no way that this kind of legal training and experience could give the judge a better understand of the law than Pete has, considering Pete's background, in........

video arcade management
and
apartment complex maintenance!

[Pottapaug1938]

Pete writes that it is ridiculous for him to conclude that he is wrong about what the law is simply because a judge ruled against him....

Well, Pete should point out to us that the judge is only a lawyer with many years of formal training and experience in the law. After all, when it comes to understanding the law, there's no way that this kind of legal training and experience could give the judge a better understand of the law than Pete has, considering Pete's background, in........

video arcade management
and
apartment complex maintenance!

To borrow a theme, again from Charlie Pierce's "Idiot America" -- experts are to be scorned and distrusted BECAUSE they are experts. Their education places them among the "elite", which means that they think that they are better than everyone, which means that their arrogance makes them insensitive to the needs of the Common Man, who is as good as the next man, isn't "grand", drinks Bud Light and not Chablis, and has all the common sense anyone needs. Only someone completely uneducated in the law, but who has plenty of common sense, can see what the law REALLY is....

[LPC]

Pete writes that it is ridiculous for him to conclude that he is wrong about what the law is simply because a judge ruled against him. That illustrates his ineptitude.

I think that it illustrates his detachment from reality.

Tax protesters seem to embody a view of the law as something that exists completely separate from what actually happens in real life. The more erudite among them profess a belief in the "natural law" that judges 100+ years ago would "discover" in their rulings on "common law." What Holmes described (derisively) as a "brooding omnipresence in the sky."

All of which is a crock. Law is what is made by legislatures and judges. To declare that what the legislatures and judges have declared to be the law is *not* the law is delusional.

[Cpt Banjo]

Tax protesters seem to embody a view of the law as something that exists completely separate from what actually happens in real life. The more erudite among them profess a belief in the "natural law" that judges 100+ years ago would "discover" in their rulings on "common law." What Holmes described (derisively) as a "brooding omnipresence in the sky."

All of which is a crock. Law is what is made by legislatures and judges. To declare that what the legislatures and judges have declared to be the law is *not* the law is delusional.

One might characterize such a view as Platonic, in the sense that it assumes the existence of an external realm of legal "forms" that embody the "real" law and that may or may not be reflected in the opinions of legislatures and judges. While such an outlook might be acceptable in other areas (e.g., mathematics, in which mathematical truths are arguably discovered, not invented), it is out of place in the law, especially if you're advising someone how the courts are likely to rule. It may have a place in a discussion of what the law should be, but that's a completely different matter.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think that it illustrates his detachment from reality.

...

Oh, I think he's attached to reality. It's the people he lures into the scam that are detached. The fact that he's behind bars might even attract more of them.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that it illustrates his detachment from reality.

...

Oh, I think he's attached to reality. It's the people he lures into the scam that are detached. The fact that he's behind bars might even attract more of them.

Of course it will. I can see the spin now: "Pete Hendrickson is so committed to bringing the truth about income taxation before the American people that he and his Warriors are willing to risk fines, imprisonment and the loss of all of their personal assets on your behalf!" The denizens of Idiot America will see that and say, "if he's so committed to his struggle, he MUST be right"; and they will become Warriors, craving the same type of martyrdom.

[Harvester]

Not everyone is deceived by your sophistry LPC. The law is separate, and stands on it's own. Yes, it's subject to interpretation and sometimes judges just plain get it wrong. Admittedly, it's been difficult to win the tax issue in court. Typically, the judge will inform the jury: "You will decide the facts of this case and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form; you decide whether or not he filed it." Ah no. If the judge will not allow the jurors to see & read the law for themselves, he is still obligated to accurately interpret the law. The argument that the tax issue is just too complex for the average juror to comprehend doesn't cut it. In fact, if it's complex there's an even greater need for the juror's to see & rule on, the law itself. We cannot allow a complex law issue to be determined by one man! The law must be clear & comprehensible to everyone; this is fundamental to a free society. A free society ruled by law and not men.

Judge Rosen did not allow the jurors to see the law, and unilaterally said Hendrickson was in an "employee-employer relationship" without proof (he was not). Judge Rosen did not fulfil his obligation.

Furthermore, WeThePeople have been negligent in our role as jurors, content to rule on the facts of the case, but not the law itself - as is our right & duty. Of course the judge is no help here, instructing them that, essentially, "I will tell you what the law is, you will do as I say ..." Um, no. We, the sovereign people of America, are the ultimate lawgivers, we make the rules via our legislators. And ultimately, We decide what the law says. STAND TALL WARRIORS! WE'RE WINNING!

Also, I'm concerned for my friend Famspire who hasn't been seen since Thurs. Any idea?
You suppose he realizes this Quatloser ship-of-deceit is about to go down?
http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne
------------------------------
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Judge Roy Bean]

...We, the sovereign people of America, are the ultimate lawgivers, we make the rules via our legislators. And ultimately, We decide what the law says. STAND TALL WARRIORS! WE'RE WINNING! ...

Dogs chase cars; don't mean they know how to drive.

[Nikki]

Nor do they have any idea what to do should they catch one

[Gregg]

Typically, the judge will inform the jury: "You will decide the facts of this case and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form; you decide whether or not he filed it."

as a matter of fact, that is exactly how our court system does work, judges decide the law (and if they're wrong they are reversed on appeal) and juries decide facts, and are very very rarely overturned on appeal, BTW. I think this may be the first true and clear thing you have ever written here, although I'm positive you did it by mistake.

[Gregg]

Although in Pete's case, they didn't have to decide if he filed or not, he did. The matter at issue was whether he knew WHAT he filed was complete BS, and they decided that he did.

Have you never before heard a jury referred to as "trier of facts"? Or perhaps the phrase that they judge would not allow the defense/prosecution to argue a matter of law? The Law is what the judge says it is. If he is wrong, it can be appealed, if "we the people" still don't like it, they can elect new representatives to change it, or in some states get a referendum, but until thaty happens, we either trust the judges, or invite anarchy....

[Lorax]

Finally decided to register for this forum in order to respond to Harvester's comment about jury instructions, but I see Gregg beat me to it. I met one of Hendrickson's followers in the flesh last fall, and when he found out I have a J.D. he asked me to read his appellate brief that he was about to file after losing in tax court. Believe it or not, the guy is pretty smart and well educated- he's an engineer- but when it comes to the federal income tax he's just completely delusional. When I found out I couldn't convince him that wages are in fact income I realized he could not be helped, but I see the guy almost every day so we would discuss Hendrickson occasionally. When I explained that judges determine the proper interpretation of the law rather than juries, he finally stopped talking to me altogether.

[Harvester]

You may be a Lorax, but
don't speak for the masses
'cuz FedCorp loves taxing them
taxing their asses

But that isn't the worst of it
no not the half
now you've given it to bankers
and the fatted calf

The People are waking
they're onto your scam
to create a 'taxpayer'
from the common man.

The People aren't meat, Sirs
you've pushed them too far
they've gone to the 'net
and learned INCOME, it's true
they've been paying a tax
that was not even due!

to destroy a free country
enslave them completely
I'm telling you Sirs,
it won't happen so neatly.

Listen up Quatlosers
I tell you they're through
they know who controls you
the banksters, that's who.
They're done with this tax
and your paper money too.

Hear now Congress
and listen up well
The People, once quiet, now are all
MAD AS HELL!

[Lorax]

Harvester, I'm not your enemy. If you guys were right about your various theories, that would mean more money in my pockets, which would be great for me. I just think Hendrickson is dead wrong, and you're not going to find an attorney worth his salt that would disagree. Many of the people that post here frequently are obviously professionals that have experience in the field, and in my opinion it's foolish for you to disregard their views, but hey, it's a free country. Oh, I guess you might disagree with the free country bit too.

Speaking of the professionals that post on this forum, have any of you checked out the handful of attorneys that Hendrickson claims have supported his views on his website?

[Nikki]

Which do "We the people" care about more?

1 - Blackhawks try to regroup after losses in Philly

2 - Boston Celtics versus the Los Angeles Lakers

3 - Gulf Oil Spill

4 - The ebil gubbment illegally collecting taxws

5 - Anything other than #4

Harvester and his cohorts have a significantly overblown sense of their importance, intelligence, correctness, and the size of their 'movement.'

Why (other than the fact that none of them can afford the bus fare) haven't tens of thousands of 'We the people' descended on Washington for an extended protest demanding their rights? Why didn't more than a handful of the LoserHeads show up for Pete's trial and sentencing?

Harvester needs to keep spouting all that bilge and repeating how the groundswell army of his like-minded patriots is going to arise and destroy the evil system. If he ever stops, he might just have to face reality.

[jg]

Which do "We the people" care about more?

1 - Blackhawks try to regroup after losses in Philly

2 - Phoenix Suns versus the Los Angeles Lakers

3 - Gulf Oil Spill

4 - The ebil gubbment illegally collecting taxws

5 - Anything other than #4

...

You may have inadvertently made item 4 not be last on your list since item 2 will not occur until November 2010.
But, if you change item 2 to Los Angeles Lakers vs. Boston Celtics (such as at http://www.lakersschedule.com/) there are many more interested in that item.

[Harvester]

Greggie, I beg to differ. The law DID NOT require me to file a tax return (I didn't make 'wages' and had no income above the statutory exemption), and any judge telling a jury it did would be lying and not interpreting the law correctly, which is his job if he'll not allow jurors to see the law. Jurors can decide facts and the law.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the evidence and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, especially when that practice has drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the verity of the evidence presented, instructions that are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

Now why would a judge not want a jury to know it can also judge the law itself? Well, I think we all know . . if you've got a trillion dollar scam running with near perfection . . why let the cat outta the bag, right?
You may also want to read up on 'grand juries:' http://americangrandjury.org/history_power.html

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, ..

Welcome Lorax, I don't know you and won't prejudge you an enemy. I'll admit at first blush tax abolitionists appear delusional, it would appear the deck is stacked against them and few have won in the courtroom. However, that doesn't change the facts, the black letter law with all it's custom "includes" definitions. Yes, engineers are bright; here's one, an 11-year nontaxpayer. Yes, wages are income. That's because 'wages' is another custom-defined statutory term. We don't have 'wages' and neither do most Americans. Quite simply, Hendrickson & Zuniga are correct; as far as they go. There's growing awareness that the deception/scam runs even deeper.
http://americandreampreservation.com/node/5
It's a lot to take in, no doubt. But don't take my word for it, look it up. All will be revealed shortly. STAND TALL WARRIORS! got real money?

[Lorax]

Harvester, apparently you are arguing that certain "wages" aren't technically wages, and that's fine, I'll let you sort that out with the courts, no skin off my nose. As to whether there's any growing "awareness," let's just say I'm a skeptic.

[Gregg]

Welcome Lorax!

I don't think even our current village idiot believes what he posts, he's a common troll who needs the attention to overcome his own perceived inadequacy. He's not really worth the time to respond to and I only do it to protect any innocent who may stumble upon it and think his ideas have as much merit as say, the thought that the moon is made of green cheese....

He comes to these parts by way of the crackheads at Lost Horizons, and I'd point out that a good part of what he puts here in his desperate attempt to get some attention is stuff he doesn't dare post over there, because even in that asylum of a site it would be too stupid to be taken seriously.