Hendrickson losses just keep mounting

[Joey Smith]

The SCOTUS will not waste time on Pete's garbage.

[LPC]

My first impression is that no one has posted the court's reasoning. In Joy's case I see: "As noted by the government, Ferguson’s interpretation of §3401(c) has been considered and rejected numerous times by many courts."

Okay, you're stupid. So I'm going to spell it out for you.

When the court says "Ferguson’s interpretation of §3401(c) has been considered and rejected numerous times by many courts," that *IS* the "court's reasoning."

So it defers to whatever the government said Joy said, which I suspect is not what she said.

No, the court defers to what Joy said that Joy said.

Similarly in Pete's case I see: "the false and frivolous claims set forth in Cracking the Code that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws". Since that claim does not appear in CtC (although I've seen a briefing where that conclusion is wrested out of a single offending sentence without its context), Pete will have no problem.

If you are now saying that workers *are* liable for the payment of federal income tax even though they are NOT federal, state, or government workers, then you are right, Pete will have no problem.

[John J. Bulten]

Grammarian, my quote was not directly about Pete's case, but about Randy White's actions which I have described. Sorry for any confusion. But since I don't argue that the law excludes "wages" from taxation, my position is unaffected.

Since the court's case law is the holding that a frivolous position, not taught by CtC in context, is frivolous, why I agree with that case law. However, the court's finding that Pete held that frivolous position, and its consequent findings of liability, are what he would appeal.

Dan, what did Joy say, with cite please? And I've always said workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax, on all their income.

As for that context:

c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation. [A "United States Corporation", defined in Sec. 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act as, "a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States...". However, we are instructed by the IRS in Pub. 15A that such officers are only to be considered "employees" if they are paid as a consequence of their positions.]
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person...
So, actually, withholding only applies to the pay of federal government workers, exactly as it always has (plus "State" government workers, since 1939, and those of the District of Columbia since 1921).

The injunction quoted only the last sentence above. It is obvious in context that Pete knows withholding also applies to corporate officers, but is not specifically mentioning them in the offending sentence. Taken alone it may be read as a frivolous position, but in its context it's not.

The injunction gives Pete's position as the frivolous position "withholding applies only to government workers". But the DOJ press release gave the correct and lawful position, that withholding is "applicable only for a limited class of people, primarily government employees". Which is it, "only" or "primarily"? Then Egan at Detroit News basically quotes the DOJ press release, but gives the position as "only government employees are required to pay federal taxes", which is not in the DOJ press release? Invokes suspicion!

[wserra]

Of course I would expect that Pete has a right to have an appeal heard prior to obeying the order.

Dr. Caligari gave you the right information, but was far too diplomatic when he said that you "may be disappointed". Allow me to phrase it more accurately: "As usual, you're wrong."

(a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions--Injunctions, Receiverships, and Patent Accountings.
...
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or in a receivership action, or a judgment or order directing an accounting in an action for infringement of letters patent, shall not be stayed during the period after its entry and until an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. The provisions of subdivision (c) of this rule govern the suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting of an injunction during the pendency of an appeal.

(c) Injunction Pending Appeal. When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party.

Rule 8, FRAP, governs the procedure for the stay motion, and (as Caligari writes) generally requires security of some sort. So Hendrickson has three choices: (1) comply, (2) move for a stay pending appeal, and satisfy the court's conditions if the motion is granted, or (3) be in contempt.

I'll personally root for (3).

[LPC]

Since the court's case law is the holding that a frivolous position, not taught by CtC in context, is frivolous, why I agree with that case law. However, the court's finding that Pete held that frivolous position, and its consequent findings of liability, are what he would appeal.

[...]

The injunction quoted only the last sentence above. It is obvious in context that Pete knows withholding also applies to corporate officers, but is not specifically mentioning them in the offending sentence. Taken alone it may be read as a frivolous position, but in its context it's not.

This sets a new standard for self-delusion, even for you.

The argument that "withholding only applies to government employees" is frivolous, and the argument that "withholding only applies to government employees and corporate officers" is also just as frivolous.

You can't polish horseshit, and you can't appeal a decision just because the gibberish the court quoted is ever-so-slightly different from the gibberish you intended.

[rachel]

Since the court's case law is the holding that a frivolous position, not taught by CtC in context, is frivolous, why I agree with that case law. However, the court's finding that Pete held that frivolous position, and its consequent findings of liability, are what he would appeal.

[...]

The injunction quoted only the last sentence above. It is obvious in context that Pete knows withholding also applies to corporate officers, but is not specifically mentioning them in the offending sentence. Taken alone it may be read as a frivolous position, but in its context it's not.

This sets a new standard for self-delusion, even for you.

The argument that "withholding only applies to government employees" is frivolous, and the argument that "withholding only applies to government employees and corporate officers" is also just as frivolous.

You cant polish horseshit, and you cant appeal a decision just because the gibberish the court quoted is ever-so-slightly different from the gibberish you intended.

John,
What the court is saying is that Hendrickson cannot ignore 3401(a) in its entirety by spot lighting 3401(c) to interpret 3401 to include only government employee's for his personnal interpretations to file official documents.
His interpretation of 3401(c) is wrong and he owes the return of the refund.
Over a year ago on losthorizons two ex CtC'ers on that forum warned everyone that Pete would lose and owe the refund.
Well, I bet those CtCer's wish they would have listened to them now!
$5,000.00 is a chunk to caugh up over any unpaid liability.
Question now is is Pete looking at possible lawsuits from readers of CtC? He just cost them $5,000.00!.....I'd laugh my ass off if a CtC'er filed against Pete.
I'd personally email him saying "I told you so"!

[.]

Kotmair apparently got a stay of his injunction pending appeal because the judge thought there might be some chance that the terms of the injunction might be modified.

Maybe a 1% chance of success for PH.

[jg]

Since the court's case law is the holding that a frivolous position, not taught by CtC in context, is frivolous, why I agree with that case law. However, the court's finding that Pete held that frivolous position, and its consequent findings of liability, are what he would appeal.
[...]
The injunction quoted only the last sentence above. It is obvious in context that Pete knows withholding also applies to corporate officers, but is not specifically mentioning them in the offending sentence. Taken alone it may be read as a frivolous position, but in its context it's not.

Whether you or I do or do not agree with the court, the ruling is that Hendrickson is an employee and must pay income tax on the wages he received (and similarly for the wife's compensation). The court heard the evidence and considered the motions of Hendrickson and of the DoJ and decided the government position is correct under the law and that the refund was erroneous.

By saying that Hendrickson's argument is frivolous the court is saying there is no legal basis any of his claims: he is not an employee, or that the payment for work was not subject to income tax or, that the payments are not included in income, or anything else he claimed during the case. The court has ruled that none of his claims that would allow for the refund are valid.

Whether or not the court takes the time and effort to detail and refute specifically each and every claim Hendrickson made is at the discretion of the court. The fact that the decision went against Hendrickson is proof that none of what he claimed would allow him not to pay income tax as the law is properly applied and enforced.

Hendrickson's interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

[grammarian44]

Grammarian, my quote was not directly about Pete's case, but about Randy White's actions which I have described. Sorry for any confusion.

Oh, my apologies! I had thought that your "we" referred to Pete, not to Randy White. I should have understood you to be a devotee of the legal arguments of Randy White, not Pete Hendrickson. John, can you give me the title of Randy White's book--the one that is the foundation for your arguments? Thanks.

[wserra]

John, can you give me the title of Randy White's book--the one that is the foundation for your arguments? Thanks.

And, while you're at it, don't forget the name of the lawyer who is supervising White in the four actions White is (in your words) "currently overseeing". Thanks.

[Kimokeo]

Since the court's case law is the holding that a frivolous position, not taught by CtC in context, is frivolous, why I agree with that case law. However, the court's finding that Pete held that frivolous position, and its consequent findings of liability, are what he would appeal.

[...]

The injunction quoted only the last sentence above. It is obvious in context that Pete knows withholding also applies to corporate officers, but is not specifically mentioning them in the offending sentence. Taken alone it may be read as a frivolous position, but in its context it's not.

This sets a new standard for self-delusion, even for you.

The argument that "withholding only applies to government employees" is frivolous, and the argument that "withholding only applies to government employees and corporate officers" is also just as frivolous.

You cant polish horseshit, and you cant appeal a decision just because the gibberish the court quoted is ever-so-slightly different from the gibberish you intended.

John,
What the court is saying is that Hendrickson cannot ignore 3401(a) in its entirety by spot lighting 3401(c) to interpret 3401 to include only government employee's for his personnal interpretations to file official documents.
His interpretation of 3401(c) is wrong and he owes the return of the refund.
Over a year ago on losthorizons two ex CtC'ers on that forum warned everyone that Pete would lose and owe the refund.
Well, I bet those CtCer's wish they would have listened to them now!
$5,000.00 is a chunk to caugh up over any unpaid liability.
Question now is is Pete looking at possible lawsuits from readers of CtC? He just cost them $5,000.00!.....I'd laugh my ass off if a CtC'er filed against Pete.
I'd personally email him saying "I told you so"!

Rachel, you're wrong. They can't sue because the information in the book is for entertainment value, is not legal advice, nobody in their right mind would believe the fiction (which is where you can find it in the library with the Xenu books - I've never seen it in the reference section), and therefore it is a self-inflicted wound. You can't claim murder if you pulled the trigger yourself.

[rachel]

This sets a new standard for self-delusion, even for you.

The argument that "withholding only applies to government employees" is frivolous, and the argument that "withholding only applies to government employees and corporate officers" is also just as frivolous.

You cant polish horseshit, and you cant appeal a decision just because the gibberish the court quoted is ever-so-slightly different from the gibberish you intended.

John,
What the court is saying is that Hendrickson cannot ignore 3401(a) in its entirety by spot lighting 3401(c) to interpret 3401 to include only government employee's for his personnal interpretations to file official documents.
His interpretation of 3401(c) is wrong and he owes the return of the refund.
Over a year ago on losthorizons two ex CtC'ers on that forum warned everyone that Pete would lose and owe the refund.
Well, I bet those CtCer's wish they would have listened to them now!
$5,000.00 is a chunk to caugh up over any unpaid liability.
Question now is is Pete looking at possible lawsuits from readers of CtC? He just cost them $5,000.00!.....I'd laugh my ass off if a CtC'er filed against Pete.
I'd personally email him saying "I told you so"!

Rachel, you're wrong. They can't sue because the information in the book is for entertainment value, is not legal advice, nobody in their right mind would believe the fiction (which is where you can find it in the library with the Xenu books - I've never seen it in the reference section), and therefore it is a self-inflicted wound. You can't claim murder if you pulled the trigger yourself.

How can I be wrong? I said " Question now is is Pete looking at possible lawsuits from readers of CtC".
Dumb ass!

[Demosthenes]

What kind of of idiot would sue their guru and therefore put the evidence of all of their own tax cheating in the public record for the IRS criminal investigators to find?

[Demosthenes]

What kind of of idiot would sue their guru and therefore put the evidence of all of their own tax cheating in the public record for the IRS criminal investigators to find?

One that has gotten righteous with the IRS?

There may be somebody that followed the hooey, got burned, came clean with the IRS and is now suing. That is a possibility isn't it?

How likely it is, is a completely different matter......

All those righteous TPs. Hmmmm.

[jg]

What kind of of idiot would sue their guru and therefore put the evidence of all of their own tax cheating in the public record for the IRS criminal investigators to find?

This kind?
from http://www.quatloos.com/Irwin_Schiff.htm

Steven Swan, a former real estate agent in Auburn, N.H., is suing Schiff for $1 million in compensation for the loss of earnings from his real estate business since 1997, $1 million for physical and emotional distress for the loss of his business and earning ability and $5 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit was filed May 23 in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nev., currently lives.

"If you do something where you encourage people to do something to their detriment, whether they believe it or not, it is called a tort, and so I filed a lawsuit for the torts I believe [Schiff] committed," Swan said.

Swan claims in his lawsuit that he first met Schiff at a Libertarian luncheon in New Hampshire in 1995 where Schiff was speaking. Afterwards, according to the suit, the two spent approximately three hours in the hotel lobby, during which time Schiff told Swan about his theories that the federal income tax was voluntary.

Swan says he then bought the books Schiff had authored on how to legally avoid paying income taxes, and even began teaching others about Schiff's theories at seminars.

In 1996, Swan's suit alleges, he used Schiff's theories to try to convince the Internal Revenue Service that he owed the government nothing and planned to pay nothing

Later, Swan was forced to close his business and IRS employees levied his bank accounts. When Swan used Schiff's theories to file two lawsuits against IRS employees, the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire dismissed both.

Perhaps Swan was already convicted when he sued; so no harm adding to the record? May 29, 2002 is the date of the article quoted above.

[Demosthenes]

Swan was indicted in March 2003, and convicted in February, 2004...

[jg]

So, do I win a prize for identifying the "kind of an idiot'?

[Demosthenes]

So, do I win a prize for identifying the "kind of an idiot'?

JG gets a shiny gold star on his forehead!

[Dezcad]

Swan was indicted in March 2003, and convicted in February, 2004...

I do not know the details of the Swan criminal case but Swan, or whoever was advising him, perhaps made a critical mistake.

Why wouldn't you use the lawsuit against Schiff in futherance of a Cheek defense at trial? Along the lines of:

Not only did I honestly believe in those theories of Schiff and therefore did not willfully fail to file (or evade), but after I discovered that the theories were bogus, I sued that b**tard.

As part of that suit, if it was for fraud, Swan would have pled detrimental reliance on Schiiff's theories.

[Demosthenes]

Swan was indicted in March 2003, and convicted in February, 2004...

I do not know the details of the Swan criminal case but Swan, or whoever was advising him, perhaps made a critical mistake.

Why wouldn't you use the lawsuit against Schiff in futherance of a Cheek defense at trial? Along the lines of:

Not only did I honestly believe in those theories of Schiff and therefore did not willfully fail to file (or evade), but after I discovered that the theories were bogus, I sued that b**tard.

As part of that suit, if it was for fraud, Swan would have pled detrimental reliance on Schiiff's theories.

Swan thinks he was prosecuted to shut him up because he was exposing the "truth" that the Jews brought down the World Trade Center. There wasn't much (and still isn't according a recent letter to the editor that he wrote) that was rational in Swan's defense decisions.

Besides, for the above scenario to work, Swan needed to start filing returns and paying taxes again in 2002, when he realized his guru sold him crap. He didn't.