Judge Rosen's analysis of Hendrickson

[Famspear]

From the statements by the Court in the sentencing hearing on April 19, 2010 (bolding and other emphasis added):

Suffice it to say here the government introduced ample evidence to support its view and the Court's view that the remuneration Mr. Hendrickson received during these years constituted wages.

The government introduced the W-2 Forms and these W-2 Forms reflected the remuneration that Mr. Hendrickson received.

As I said, this really boils down to a recitation and a repetition of Mr. Henderson's [sic] disagreement with the government and with the Court as to what constitutes wages.

The same decision applies with respect to the defendant's sufficiency of the evidence arguments as to whether or not he was an employee, as to whether or not he had an employer-employee relationship during these years and the various other opinions that he holds as to his interpretation of the tax code.

I do want to say a word about the defendant's position that there was an insufficiency of evidence as to his willfulness in making false statements in his submissions to the IRS, because willfulness is a necessary element that the government must show in a successful prosecution in carrying its burden in these 7206 offenses.

The government, in its response to the defendant's motion, points to ample evidence from which a jury could have concluded, obviously did conclude, that the element of willfulness was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, the government noted that the evidence that the defendant filed tax forms for earlier years 1997 through 2000 which he reported the wages on his W-2 Forms as income and declared taxes on the income, thereby evidencing his knowledge that at least for those years he knew what the tax laws required.

Now he may have had a change of heart, but he certainly knew.

And his willfulness is evidenced, again, by his -- among other things, his valid -- his filing of prior valid returns, as well as by his submission of the -- what I would characterize as protest documents.

In addition to that, the government points to the defendant's prior convictions relating to tax protest activities and failure to file and his testimony during cross examination reflecting his -- the rejection of the validity of court rulings in Judge Edmunds' decision in, I believe 2000 in the civil suit, which the government brought to recover funds that were erroneously repaid to the defendant.

[ . . . ]

I don't doubt that Mr. Hendrickson, for reasons which I can't explain, disagrees with the Internal Revenue Service's position, its interpretation of the code and the position that numerous courts have taken in rejecting his various constructions of his reasons why he is not subject to the income tax.

What is important to note here in this context is that Mr. Hendrickson's disagreement does not equal a lack of willfulness.

Under every definition that every single court has looked at, a citizen taxpayer or noncitizen taxpayer for that matter, is not simply free to impose or construct his or her own definition of what the tax code requires and follow that and thereby evade criminal prosecution. That's simply is not the law nor could it be the law. If every person in this country who earned remuneration for the work they do were free to construct their own definition of what constitutes taxable income or wages, we would pretty soon be in a position of anarchy, because such an approach would apply not only to our obligations as citizens with respect to the tax code, but with respect to every other obligation that we as citizens had.

And the fact that Mr. Hendrickson does not agree with the interpretation of the tax code adopted by the Internal Revenue Service and by the government and by courts, every court that has looked at these issues, does not mean that Mr. Hendrickson is not in a legal sense acting wilfully [sic].

He has been for many years now, on notice and more than notice, that his view has been rejected by every governmental authority that has looked at this.

[ . . . ]

I listened with great interest to Mr. Henderson's [sic] testimony as he explained his view as to the definitional scope and requirements of the tax code. I confess that at times I was at pains to follow it.

It was based upon wholly nonsensical and archaic constructions of words, in the Court's view, quite self-serving interpretations.

And in the face of every interpretation in contradiction to Mr. Henderson's [sic] views he has persisted in this and has not only persisted in it, but has focused with I would characterize as almost diatribes in the direction of those who disagree with him.

He asks courts and he asks the government to take a view of leniency toward him and his views, but he surely does not take that same leniency with respect to others who disagree with him. His characterizations of the government, his writings to the IRS and of courts who disagree with him reflect a persistent and almost in a psychological context perseverant response that simply finds no basis not only in the law, but really in a common sense approach to the relationship of a citizenry with its government.

Before coming out on the bench, I was looking through dictionaries to try to find -- and a Thesaurus to try to find some definition that captured what I perceive as Mr. Hendrickson's responses to taxing authorities.

The only accurate description that totally describes, without putting a more pejorative, a more pejorative context to it would be the psychological condition of perseveration. Because in reviewing Mr. Henderson's [sic] course of conduct over the last two decades, I can only conclude that he cannot help himself.

[ . . . ]

The definition of perseveration is: An uncontrollable repetition of a particular response despite the action or cessation of the stimulus. The tendency to continue or repeat an act or activity after the cessation of the original stimulus;

In Mr. Henderson's [sic] case, he has demonstrated this perseverant behavior consistently in a number of different manifestations over the last -- at least the last 20 years or perhaps more in the face of every governmental authority and every judicial decision that has been rendered against him.

I suppose he may view himself in heroic terms as standing up against some sort of tyrannical government as he has reflected on his websites and his writings somehow the government and the judiciary somehow conspired against him and all the people.

He simply perseverates in his response.

And this perseveration that I've identified here carries through in this case and carries through unhappily into his continuing legal arguments.

It's not unusual for litigants in both civil and criminal cases in this court to disagree with the Court's rulings.

[ . . . .]

What is unusual is his perseverate behavior in the face of rulings from every possible authority, whether taxing authority or judicial authority.

And all I can say is both his arguments in the post-trial motions and in his objections to the Presentence Report simply are a continuing piece of the same perseverate conduct that he has demonstrated consistently and persistently over the course of more than two decades now.

[ . . . ]

He apparently is of the belief that I should have instructed the jury by giving the jury the complete statutory code as to all of the language contained in the IRS Code as it relates to the definition of persons, as relates to the definition of wages, as relates to the definition of employer, as it relates to the definition of employee.

All I can say is that's not the job of a judge.

A judge's obligation in instructing a jury of lay people is to put the law in terms that a lay jury can understand as clearly and succinctly as it possibly can. And that's what I did in this case.

After construing the code as to these definitional points, I instructed the jury in plain English in words that I thought they could understand as to my legal rulings on these definitions.

[ . . . ]

In the end, the jury, after considering all the evidence and deliberating, found that although Mr. Hendrickson disagreed with the interpretation, he was on full notice of what the taxing authorities believed the law required.......

--Judge Gerald E. Rosen, from pages 8 through 24 of the transcript of the Sentence Hearing Proceedings, Monday, April 19, 2010, United States v. Hendrickson, no. 08-20585, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit Div.).

[Famspear]

Judge Rosen stated:

First, the government noted that the evidence that the defendant filed tax forms for earlier years 1997 through 2000 which he reported the wages on his W-2 Forms as income and declared taxes on the income, thereby evidencing his knowledge that at least for those years he knew what the tax laws required.

[ . . . ]

And his willfulness is evidenced, again, by his -- among other things, his valid -- his filing of prior valid returns, as well as by his submission of the -- what I would characterize as protest documents.

In addition to that, the government points to ..... his testimony during cross examination reflecting his -- the rejection of the validity of court rulings in Judge Edmunds' decision in, I believe 2000 in the civil suit, which the government brought to recover funds that were erroneously repaid to the defendant.

[ . . . ]

What is important to note here in this context is that Mr. Hendrickson's disagreement does not equal a lack of willfulness.

Under every definition that every single court has looked at, a citizen taxpayer or noncitizen taxpayer for that matter, is not simply free to impose or construct his or her own definition of what the tax code requires and follow that and thereby evade criminal prosecution.

[ . . . . ]

And the fact that Mr. Hendrickson does not agree with the interpretation of the tax code adopted by the Internal Revenue Service and by the government and by courts, every court that has looked at these issues, does not mean that Mr. Hendrickson is not in a legal sense acting wilfully [sic].

He has been for many years now, on notice and more than notice, that his view has been rejected by every governmental authority that has looked at this.

To rephrase what I have written before: A taxpayer is not legally free to read the court decisions and IRS pronouncements and IRS instruction books and then reject them -- no matter how strongly he believes the courts and the IRS to be "wrong" -- and to simply file his tax return under his own theory about the law. In such a case, the taxpayer is not entitled to a ruling that his actual belief negates willfulness. Clearly, the defendant in such a case is aware of the law. To knowingly, intentionally reject the IRS interpretation is the equivalent of awareness of the law itself -- not because the IRS says so, but because the IRS just happens to be right. Further, to knowingly, intentionally reject the courts' interpretation is the equivalent of awareness of the law itself because the courts' interpretation is the law under the U.S. legal system. To reject correct interpretations of which the defendant is AWARE is a DISAGREEMENT with the law, not a good faith belief, etc., etc., as that term is used by the Court in Cheek. Sometimes, an actual belief is not a "Cheek good faith belief".

Stated in a slightly different way: The defendant's rejection of the IRS's interpretation of the law (which just happens to be the correct interpretation) is, essentially, an indirect but functional admission of the defendant's awareness of the law -- and it is this awareness that negates willfulness under the Cheek doctrine. In a jury trial, it is up to the jury to make that determination.

More from the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cheek v. United States:

[ . . . ] in deciding whether to credit [defendant John] Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions ......

--Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991) (bolding added).

[Harvester]

I will pray for you and Judge Rosen.
Lord knows you're gonna need it!


__________________________________________________________________
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20560.html

[Famspear]

I will pray for you and Judge Rosen.
Lord knows you're gonna need it!

Yeah, why is Judge Rosen going to need you to pray for him, Harvester? Come on, stand tall, warrior!

[Cathulhu]

I will pray for you and Judge Rosen.
Lord knows you're gonna need it!

Yeah, why is Judge Rosen going to need you to pray for him, Harvester? Come on, stand tall, warrior!

Hey, he was praying for me only last week or so, fickle s.o.b.

Highly honored to be in Judge Rosen's company in this; the list of us Harv's puttin' in the fix with the Old Man for. I hereby propose a three hundred quatloo award to each of us Harv prays on, yes, pun damn well intended.

[Nikki]

Because Harvester (this time as "Libre" -- which is probably short for Liberace) has returned to his mother ship and is working hard to warn all the LoserHeads about us. But he didn't even get that right.

Strangely, though, he neglected to mention anything about Fearless Leader's impending incarceration. Perhaps it just slipped through the mega-pores in what passes for his mind.

[Joey Smith]

More like Nacho Libre

For whatever reason, I can't access the LostHeads forum -- can you post his junk for my amusement?

[Nikki]

As requested, but WARNING: Beverages down and barf bags nearby.


You asked for it -- warts and all, verbatim

I was asked to share this:

Pete Hendrickson is correct. All my experience & research confirm it. I now pay no 'income' tax and no longer file. This has afforded me a bit of leisure (I write this poolside) to spread the good news of the tax truth, mostly online. Of course, it's often met with disbelief and resistance. Old habits die hard. But among those a certain breed stands out. Their vigour and rabid defence of the misapplied tax struck me as odd. But then, reason alone suggests those controlling a trillion dollar a year scam would be unwise not to invest a bit of it supporting such a breed of online tax shill, those sent to deceive, discourage, confuse, and misdirect you back into the taxpayer pen.

I persisted with one of the shills, apparently scared him off one venue and, against better advice, followed him directly into a nest of them. Quatloos.com is without a doubt the heart of darkness, the lair of the beast. Under the "know your enemy" maxim I endeavored to learn what I could. Here's what I found out:

QUATLOOS is populated largely by legal and financial professionals, several from Washington DC (Disgrace of Columbia). It's rumored to be CIA-funded. Their stated mission is to educate and expose a wide variety of financial scams & frauds. But the true purpose (& great irony) of the site however, is to protect & defend the largest scam in known history. That is, the Federal Reserve / IRS scams. And why are government scams never exposed, but defended? They've never answered this question, and that's particularly revealing.

Quatlosers run the gamut from hardcore veterans to beginners who actually believe the professional liars, who say we all have "taxable income" and all must "pay your fair share." These social predators use all the tricks to redirect the curious back into the taxpayer pen. These include the known logical fallacies like Ad Hominem, Straw Man, Misconstrue, Redirect, etc. and a few more thrown in for full measure. They're well versed in COINTELPRO techniques for control of an internet forum. Quite humorous to watch really, bereft, mostly liars, some pathological, perhaps even psychopathic.

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
Quatloos is hardcore, not for the faint of heart; it gets ugly over there. They love to poke fun at freedom fighters and Hendrickson. As they've never before faced anyone who so succinctly & successfully described the scam as Pete, of course he & his CtC book are the Quatlosers chief target. It takes a thick skin, a strong stomach and knowledge of their agenda to withstand it. They'll try to engage you, to argue, to get you to respond emotionally.

PERSONALITIES

Demosthenes (melonhead)- Purportedly responsible for turning over IP addresses to the IRS (I believe the word is 'snitch'). Owns the website cheatingfrenzy.com (?)

Doktor Avalanche - fights for freedom in Afghanistan with one hand and defends tax slavery with the other. Needs prayer.

Famspear (Famspire, Lord Farquhar)- As the site owner, Jay Adkisson, hardly posts under his 'sooltauq' handle, Famspear is most likely Jay. Why create a playground and not play there? He's not afraid to quote a lower court that just plain "got it wrong." The master of deception.

fortinbras (bernie the useful)- Bernard Sussman. Legal librarian? Very knowledgeable.

Gregg - poor little rich guy's been totally taken in.

Judge Roy Bean - governments are immune to scams, right?

LOBO (LoBOhead, lobotomy)- typical robotic tax defender

LPC (Large Psychopathic Cat)- This is the notorious Daniel B. Evans, author of the Tax Protestor FAQ, so relied upon by proponents of tax slavery.

Nikki (the warden)- Never seen anyone delight more in the suffering of others.

notorial dissent (national descent)- I forget..

Pottapaug1938 - native American victim of the scam.

webhick - geek that helps the webmaster.

wserra - Wes

PATRIOTS
David Merrill - An American sovereign, a true original. David has uncovered much of what's been hidden.
Harvester - yours truly
Reenie - tireless warrior for freedom
Weston White -

CYBERSECURITY - A word of caution before any venture in. For awhile, a java script attempted to install malware on every visitor's computer. Immunize yourself and remember they can track IP address (your endpoint on the 'net) and whatever other # or tidbit of info they can.

VICTORY IS OURS
While it may appear the evildoers in partnership with govt are winning, remember . . It's darkest just before the dawn. Freedom fighters along with the military and SC justices are making progress behind the scenes. Several patriot groups have joined forces and I see evidence of change. People are waking! Each day we grow closer to victory. Stand tall warriors!
http://www.panamalaw.org/psychological_ ... f_rap.html

Send insights, updates (or disinfo) to: nationwidescam at yahoo dot com

[Harvester]

But he didn't even get that right.

I didn't? So sorry. Do tell and I'll get right on it.

[Famspear]

I'm still not clear on why he thinks or suspects that I'm Jay Adkisson, the creator of this web site (I'm not). Harvey's been on that kick (off and on) since last year.

[Joey Smith]

No mention of Pete going to the pokey? Or that Pete and his idiot followers have lost 100% of the time?

This time next year, Pete will be in prison and the only mention of him will be by the morons who followed him who are complaining about their accounts being levied, etc.

Financial Darwinism!

[Dezcad]

Because Harvester (this time as "Libre" -- which is probably short for Liberace) has returned to his mother ship and is working hard to warn all the LoserHeads about us. But he didn't even get that right.

Strangely, though, he neglected to mention anything about Fearless Leader's impending incarceration. Perhaps it just slipped through the mega-pores in what passes for his mind.

Is it good or bad that I am not mentioned?

[Famspear]

Because Harvester (this time as "Libre" -- which is probably short for Liberace) has returned to his mother ship and is working hard to warn all the LoserHeads about us. But he didn't even get that right.

Strangely, though, he neglected to mention anything about Fearless Leader's impending incarceration. Perhaps it just slipped through the mega-pores in what passes for his mind.

Is it good or bad that I am not mentioned?

Yes. It's good or bad.



Maybe he's bitter because you're the one who brought us the news about the date on which Pontificating Peter is prescribed to proceed to prison.

EDIT: Harvester wrote:

Pete Hendrickson is correct. All my experience & research confirm it.

We just can't make this stuff up. Here's Harvester -- a guy who, from the standpoint of his knowledge of tax law, is analogous to a guy who can't find his butt with his hands tied behind his back -- providing the losthorizontals with a ringing endorsement of Pete Hendrickson! From Harvester, a guy who is batting .000 on predictions about Hendrickson's fate.



"All my experience & research confirm it."



Oh, my, poor Pete!

[Harvester]

Joey, what accounts?
dezcad, would you like to be mentioned?

[LOBO]

I just want to know where the heck my CIA funding is.

[Famspear]

I just want to know where the heck my CIA funding is.

You didn't get the memo? Your share of the money was deposited in your super-secret double-naught spy bank account -- you know, the account maintained for you by the evil international banking conspirators who control the Federal Reserve System, the conspirators who have controlled all the federal judges (going back to the 1860's) who have ruled on federal income tax issues.

Ooops!

[Famspear]

Harvester wrote:

While it may appear the evildoers in partnership with govt are winning, remember . . It's darkest just before the dawn....

Yeah, Harvester, but I thought that your "dawn" came back around March 31, 2010, remember? When you were so happy about the "Guardians of the Free Republics"? Remember the letters to all the governors of the states? And remember your prediction that Hendrickson would probably not be convicted? And after he was convicted, remember your prediction that he would never be sentenced? For Haughty Hendrickson and His Hilarious Humbugs, the "dawn" just keeps getting darker and darker and darker and darker and darker and darker and darker.....

[webhick]

CYBERSECURITY - A word of caution before any venture in. For awhile, a java script attempted to install malware on every visitor's computer. Immunize yourself and remember they can track IP address (your endpoint on the 'net) and whatever other # or tidbit of info they can.

Since you posted to the thread that dealt with this issue, I find it disingenuous that you would imply that we were the ones who installed that virus. This site was one of the victims of the virus and the webmaster worked diligently to remove it every single time it appeared. You can read more about the problem here. As a matter of fact, I just finished cleaning up the residual damage left behind by the virus.

Trust me, Harvester, if I wanted to install a malware program onto your computer using a website, I would simply call up one of my old hacker friends who owes me a favor and have him (or her) hack Pete's server and install something not detected by any scanner - including the high pitched ones who can wipe out life on an entire planet.

[ashlynne39]

I saw Harvester's post at LH and as a newbie here, I learned all sorts of things. For example, I had no idea I was joining a CIA funded board. How very cool. The descriptions of all the players here was most helpful. I wish I could do that IP address thing. There some on another board I post on that I'd love to report to the IRS. It is odd though that with all the legal and other professionals here that only Pete as confirmed by Harvester's research and experience (?) is correct. I'm assuming when he says experience he doesn't mean expertise.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I got a shout-out and came in #2 on Harvey's list?