Hendrickson's Motion for Release at 6th Cir

[Dezcad]

PH's new attorney has filed aMotion for Release pending Appeal which i nearly identical to the one denied at the District Court.

Interestingly enough, an Exhibit to that Motion is the Sentencing Transcript, which is, although long, somewhat interesting.


Judge Rosen states, pp75-76:

THE COURT: I must tell you, I'm also troubled by Mr. Hendrickson's lack of acceptance of
the role of law in our society and the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law.
It's one thing to disagree with governmental officials and judges and their decisions. I, myself, often disagree.
It's another thing to publicly take on the integrity of those who are making these difficult decisions as Mr. Hendrickson has done repeatedly, and was evidenced in his testimony, quite frankly.
Anybody who disagrees with him is rogue or ignorant, is involved in fraudulent conduct himself or herself.
He -- Mr. Hendrickson has no compunction whatsoever about attacking the motives of decision makers with whom he disagrees with both within the executive branch and the IRS and within the judiciary. I find this very troubling, quite honestly.
And in terms of the sentencing factor requirement that a sentence promote respect for the
law, I have to take into account the fact that Mr. Hendrickson doesn't simply hold these views and hold them strongly.
That anybody who disagrees with him is, themselves, conspiring to deprive him and others of their legal rights, rogue judges, ignorant.
How can I promote respect for the law and for those whose responsibility it is to implement
and interpret the law if I don't reflect in the sentence Mr. Hendrickson's conduct in this area?

In his allocution, PH continues to be perserverate.

[Famspear]

........It's another thing to publicly take on the integrity of those who are making these difficult decisions as Mr. Hendrickson has done repeatedly, and was evidenced in his testimony, quite frankly.
Anybody who disagrees with him is rogue or ignorant, is involved in fraudulent conduct himself or herself.
He -- Mr. Hendrickson has no compunction whatsoever about attacking the motives of decision makers with whom he disagrees with both within the executive branch and the IRS and within the judiciary. I find this very troubling, quite honestly.

(bolding added).

The judge has identified a character flaw shared among many tax protesters. Harvester is an example of another arrogant protester with this flaw: the willingness to engage in personal attacks in the form of false accusations about the motives of those with whom he disagrees.

[Joey Smith]

Pete and his sheeple followers simply want to self-decide the law in favor of their selfish self-interests, without anybody else even hinting that they might be wrong.

Nothing new here.

Pete is going to jail because he is WRONG, not because of some big conspiracy. Pete's followers are having their bank accounts levied, fired from their jobs, and suffering the effects of Economic Darwinism simply because they are WRONG, not because of some big conspiracy.

But don't worry, the sheeple will abandon Pete pretty quickly now and move on to their next guru whoever it is.

[Harvester]

Lord Famspire, I'm sorry that you're feeling 'personally attacked.' I hardly consider our friendly debate over tax law an attack. I consider those I disagree with either Decepticons (deceivers) or their innocent victims (sheep). Perhaps you're feeling a little scared of late, what with all the recent changes and awakenings, that's understandable. You need to realize these feelings are all in your head, I have no animosity towards you or any other Quatloser. I love you all!

No Joey, Hendrickson's followers are not sheeple. They're to be counted among those in the Great Awakening. The sheeple are those unaware of the vast lies & deception all around them, including most Quatlosers. I should know, I was once a sheep.

And why is it that Quatloos says it exposes scams, but never exposes government-run scams?

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

[Famspear]

Lord Famspire, I'm sorry that you're feeling 'personally attacked.' I hardly consider our friendly debate over tax law an attack.

Baloney. You're not sorry, and you're not fooling anyone.

I consider those I disagree with either Decepticons (deceivers) or their innocent victims (sheep).

Exactly. You consider those with whom you disagree as "Decepticons." Just as Hendrickson does, you engage in personal attacks and you question the motives of those with whom you disagree -- without any basis for doing so.

Perhaps you're feeling a little scared of late, what with all the recent changes and awakenings, that's understandable.

Baloney. You're feeling scared, what with the RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. You're again projecting your fear onto others.

You need to realize

No, I don't "need to realize. It's too late for you to engage in amateur psychological analysis. I'm much better at it than you are, by the way.

No Joey, Hendrickson's followers are not sheeple. They're to be counted among those in the Great Awakening.

Baloney. Hendrickson's followers are sheeple. They are gullible crooks.

The sheeple are those unaware of the vast lies & deception all around them, including most Quatlosers.

Baloney.

And why is it that Quatloos says it exposes scams, but never exposes government-run scams?

And why is it that you are obsessed with the idea that the federal income tax is a "scam," and yet you persist in claiming that Hendrickson's scam is not a scam? Because you are delusional.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, I think liar and stupid pretty well sums it up for old Harvey.

[LPC]

I consider those I disagree with either Decepticons (deceivers) or their innocent victims (sheep).

Exactly. You consider those with whom you disagree as "Decepticons." Just as Hendrickson does, you engage in personal attacks and you question the motives of those with whom you disagree -- without any basis for doing so.

The words "decepticon" and "sheeple" are also dehumanizing, demonstrating that Harvester considers those who disagree with him to be less than human.

Dehumanization is a useful mindset when your goal is to enslave, oppress, or kill your opponents.

[LPC]

PH's new attorney has filed aMotion for Release pending Appeal which i nearly identical to the one denied at the District Court.

Here's the howler from the motion:

The government introduced no evidence that Mr. Hendrickson‘s returns were in fact false. The government introduced no direct, reliable, subject-to-cross-examination evidence that Mr. Hendrickson‘s earnings constituted taxable income according to the Internal Revenue Code. Although Cheek contemplates the admission of extrinsic evidence to show intent, Gaudin commands that the government show that the defendant‘s under oath statement was materially false. The government here completely failed to make this showing.

The brief in support of the motion appears to be a cut-and-paste of what we've seen from Hendrickson in the past, but the following is worth commenting on:

As Mr. Hendrickson eloquently articulated at his April 19 allocution, the government and the Court stubbornly claim that "all" earnings are taxable when the law (including Treasury regulations) clearly states that only "some" earnings are taxable. The government has never shown and cannot show that "all" earnings are taxable and has never shown that Mr. Hendrickson‘s earnings are within the "some" taxable wages.

LL has it backwards here, because the general rule found in the statute and regulations is that *all* income is taxable, *all* wages are subject to FICA, and *all* wages are subject to withholding, and that the burden is on the taxpayer to show an exclusion or exception, not on the government to show inclusion.

Moving on the claim that there was no evidence about the falsity of the returns, we find the following:

Uchimura makes clear that the government bears the burden of showing, through direct, admissible evidence, not only that the challenged item of information on the sworn document is objectively false, but also that the item of information is "necessary" to determine the proper tax. Here, the government presented not even a scintilla of evidence supporting either of these essential elements. No witness directly testified that anything on Mr. Hendrickson‘s forms is false. Further, the government presented no witness or document supporting the notion that providing a number other than "zero" on any of the forms at issue is "necessary" to the determination of Mr. Hendrickson‘s alleged tax liability. In fact, the prosecution based its case on the proposition that all that is needed to determine Mr. Hendrickson‘s tax liabilities are the unverified W-2‘s filed with the IRS by the company for which Mr. Hendrickson worked.

In sum, the government, with the Court‘s assistance, successfully portrayed Mr. Hendrickson as doggedly disagreeing with IRS officials (some of whom ultimately agreed with Mr. Hendrickson) and federal judges on the issue of whether his "earnings" were taxable income. The government did not, however, present one witness or one document directly evidencing that Mr. Hendrickson‘s filings were "false" or, further, that they were false as to any "material" matter. The government tried a case by mere implication—presenting evidence only that the company for which Mr. Hendrickson worked inserted numbers on unsigned, unverified W-2 forms and sent those forms to the IRS, and the IRS in some cases accepted those numbers and rejected Mr. Hendrickson‘s under-oath rebuttals declaring that the correct number for Code-defined "wages" was zero. The government presented no witness testifying how or why the W-2s were correct and truthful, or how or why Mr. Hendrickson‘s rebuttals were not correct and truthful. Indeed, the government did not offer one word of substantive testimony about the contents of any of these forms. Nor did it present any testimony about how or why Mr. Hendrickson‘s rebuttals in any way obstructed or prevented the IRS from determining the proper amount of taxes. The government therefore failed completely to present any evidence of "falseness" or of "materiality".

Failing to mention that officers of Hendrickson's employers actually testified as to his employment is something that I would say borders on the unethical.

[Duke2Earl]

It is ceaselessly amazing that tax deniers seem to think that they are engaged in some sort of debate about the applicability of the income tax to individuals. These fools like Harvey seem to think there is some sort of open question susceptible to "debate." When actually the only debatable question is whether Congress should change the current laws. As to whether the current income tax law apples to the wage income of individuals, that is no more "debatable" than the question of whether the sun rises in the morning.

[LOBO]

I consider those I disagree with either Decepticons (deceivers) or their innocent victims (sheep).

Exactly. You consider those with whom you disagree as "Decepticons." Just as Hendrickson does, you engage in personal attacks and you question the motives of those with whom you disagree -- without any basis for doing so.

The words "decepticon" and "sheeple" are also dehumanizing, demonstrating that Harvester considers those who disagree with him to be less than human.

Dehumanization is a useful mindset when your goal is to enslave, oppress, or kill your opponents.

Maybe he thinks people who disagree with him are robots in disguise who fight the autobots.

[Pottapaug1938]

The government presented no witness testifying how or why the W-2s were correct and truthful.

Failing to mention that officers of Hendrickson's employers actually testified as to his employment is something that I would say borders on the unethical.

I think that part of the problem is that, in the (feeble) minds of the Loserheads, the witnesses did not testify how or why the W-2s were truthful because they did not use CtC principles or language when they testified, and thus could not have given legally valid testimony.

[Dezcad]

In the GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL filed today, I noticed this:

Defendant is currently scheduled to report to the Bureau of Prisons on June
29, 2010. fn1//quote]

1/ Defendant is also currently in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order in connection with a civil injunction and judgment to file amended tax returns and for failing to comply with a court order to compel responses to post judgment financial discovery requests. Op. & Order, No. 06-11753 (E.D. Mich. June 10, 2010). That order provides that defendant is subject to incarceration after 14 days if he has not yet filed the returns and complied with discovery

[Dezcad]

6th Circuit denied Motion for Release and dismissed appeal. PH set to report tomorrow (although he still is subject to contempt proceedings - no update on PACER yet).

Nos. 10-1726 & 10-1819
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PETER HENDRICKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
)))))))))
O R D E R
Before: KEITH, MARTIN, and GUY, Circuit Judges.
The defendant appeals his conviction of willfully filing false documents in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). (No. 10-1726). He is scheduled to report to begin serving his 33-month sentence on June 29, 2010, and he moves for release on bond pending appeal. The district court denied a similar motion for release on June 9, 2010, and the defendant also appeals that order. ( No. 10-
1819). The government opposes the defendant’s motion for release on bond.
The defendant may be released pending appeal if he shows: 1) by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of another person or the community; and 2) that his appeal is not for delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a sentence reduced to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1); United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704, 709 (6th Cir. 2002). This statute creates a presumption against release pending appeal. See United States v. Roach, 502 F.3d 425, 446-47 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1006 (2008) (affirming the denial of release pending appeal because the defendant failed to raise a substantial question that would overcome the presumption against release); United States v. Vance, 851 F.2d 166, 168-69 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 893 (1988).
The defendant argues that he is not a danger and does not pose a risk of flight. The district court did not make any findings with respect to danger or risk of flight, and the record before this court does not support a finding that the release of the defendant would pose a danger or a risk of flight. However, the defendant has not demonstrated that his appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact as required by § 3143(b)(1). This court has consistently held that wages are taxable income. See, e.g., Boggs v. Comm’r, 569 F.3d 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2009); Sawukaytis v. Comm’r, 102 F. App’x 29, 33 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1002 (2004); Perkins v. Comm’r, 746 F.2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984). The argument asserted by the defendant, most of which are based on his inaccurate and faulty interpretation of the tax code, border on being frivolous or are not substantial.
Thus, we cannot conclude that release on bail pending appeal is justified.
The motion for release on bond pending appeal is DENIED. The defendant’s appeal from
the denial of his motion for release pending appeal, Case No. 10-1819, is DISMISSED as moot.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

(bolding added)

[LPC]

6th Circuit denied Motion for Release and dismissed appeal.

Clarification: I believe that what was dismissed was the appeal of the district court's denial of release on bond. (No. 10-1819.) The appeal of the conviction (No. 10-1726) has not been dismissed and will proceed in the usual way.

[Dezcad]

6th Circuit denied Motion for Release and dismissed appeal.

Clarification: I believe that what was dismissed was the appeal of the district court's denial of release on bond. (No. 10-1819.) The appeal of the conviction (No. 10-1726) has not been dismissed and will proceed in the usual way.

You are correct, I could have been clearer. The appeal of the conviction is still pending.

[Dezcad]

PH finally mentions something in his newsletter:

Dear Friends
The appellate court today denied my motion for release on bond pending my appeal of the criminal assault being conducted on myself, my family, and the law itself. My motion can be read here; the adversary's evasions can be read here, and my reply is here. The page-and-a-half decision by the appellate panel, which was issued, on my request, in great haste less than a week after my motion went in, can be seen here. I strongly urge everyone to read each of these through.

Due to this denial, I will have to enjoy the hospitality of Uncle Sam for awhile, until an actual appeal is briefed and heard. It is my hope that this won't be too long, but we'll see.

In the meantime, I urge you all to stay on your feet. Keep sending in those victories, and keep spreading the truth about the tax. It is these things that will see our liberty from this scourge secured in the end, regardless of what happens to me in the meantime.

On behalf of my wonderful Doreen, and my children, who are the greatest blessings in my life, I ask you all to give what support you can. The best way to do that is to order books, and see that they find welcoming homes. This will allow Doreen to keep a roof over the kids' heads, and at the same time be the best way to move the ball of greater public knowledge of the truth about the tax, and the outrages being committed to keep that truth hidden, downfield toward the net.

Plain old donations will certainly not be unappreciated, as well, of course; to make them, please go here.

Finally, Doreen will appreciate your kind words, and I will appreciate your sharing them with her, at doreen 'at' losthorizons.com

He fails to mention that both he and Doreen are both subject to incarceration unless they've complied with the two Contempt matters.

[Imalawman]

Those kids don't stand a chance....yikes. Too bad.

[grixit]

I've thought of a few organizations that are more conscientious in looking after the families of dead or imprisoned fellow members than the Worm Warriors. In no particular order:

1. The Crips
2. The Taliban
3. Hell's Angels
4. The Teamsters
5. The Masons
6. Operation Rescue
7. a pack of wild dogs
8. The WWE
9. Stormfront
10. The Beach Boys

I'm sure everyone can think of others.

[LPC]

PH finally mentions something in his newsletter:

Dear Friends
The appellate court today denied my motion for release on bond pending my appeal of the criminal assault being conducted on myself, my family, and the law itself.

[...]

Due to this denial, I will have to enjoy the hospitality of Uncle Sam for awhile, until an actual appeal is briefed and heard. It is my hope that this won't be too long, but we'll see. [...]

He fails to mention that both he and Doreen are both subject to incarceration unless they've complied with the two Contempt matters.

It doesn't make any difference. No one at LH is paying any attention.

[Joey Smith]

Dear Pete:

Nobody who matters gives a shit what you think.

Cheers.