"Harvester" wrote:
I've not paid income tax since 2007 and have no friv pen, no levies, no liens, no garnishments. Not a peep from the DoJ/IRS.
Which puts Harvester in the category of the vast majority of other crooks who cheat on their federal income taxes. The fact that they haven't been caught yet proves nothing that they would like to see proved.
Pete is correct, the income tax is an excise on federal privilege.
No, Pete is incorrect. The federal income tax is not an excise on "federal privilege." Every court that has been presented with this argument has rejected it. And neither Pete nor Harvester has ever offered a statute or court decision that backs up what they say about "federal privilege." There is no record of anyone ever having even raised the stupid "federal privilege" argument in a court of law in the about first 67 years of the modern federal income tax.
No one raised the argument from 1913 to 1919.
No one raised the argument from 1920 to 1929.
No one raised the argument from 1930 to 1939.
No one raised the argument from 1940 to 1949.
No one raised the argument from 1950 to 1959.
No one raised the argument from 1960 to 1969.
No one raised the argument from 1970 to 1979.
The earliest reported decision of anyone having ever come up with this stupid theory in a court of law that I have found so far is in 1980 -- the case of
United States v. Buras (argument that the taxpayer can be subject to the federal income tax only if he benefits from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was rejected), 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980).
Then other wackos began copying the argument -- losing every single time. Hendrickson is just another in a line of loser copycats.
He was selectively prosecuted for daring to show us the truth, that we could walk off the federal plantation at any time. Like I did.
He was prosecuted for filing false tax returns. He was tried, found guilty by the jury, sentenced, and sent to prison. That's where he is now. And if he was "selectively" prosecuted in the sense used by Harvester, that's OK -- both legally and morally. The term "selective prosecution" does have a technical legal meaning. However, the kind of "selective" prosecution that Harvester is talking about does not qualify as an illegal selective prosecution. The courts have ruled that it is OK for the government to "selectively prosecute" tax protesters in the way that Harvester is describing. And there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or any statute that prohibits this kind of "selective prosecution."
The govt never proved their case, never presented a valid assessment for the years in question, never proved Pete even owed the tax.
Yes, the government proved its case. The fact that Harvester disagrees with the result means nothing. And whether the government presented a valid assessment or not, the government was not legally required to do that in order to prove its case. Showing a valid assessment is not required to prove the willful filing of a false federal income tax return.
Instead they relied on deception and the conditioned response of a jury of taxpayer slaves.
Baloney. Typical tax protester rhetoric -- offered with nothing to back it up.
It's no surprise they said "not so fast pal," found him guilty of escaping the same farm they're slaves on too. The jury didn't realize they're victims of the cabal too, free to go at any time!
Baloney. Typical tax protester rhetoric -- again, offered with nothing to back it up.
Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson is an just another con artist loser -- just like Harvester, aka Nationwide aka johnthetaxist aka Libre aka John Travis Harvester.
EDIT: Oh, and the reader will be happy to know that people who have claimed to be users of Hendrickson's scam, or who Hendrickson has listed as users on his web site, are also in federal prison, including Roger Charles Menner, Eugene George Warner, and Michael O'Daniel. "Selective" prosecution, indeed....
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet