His Blowhardiness, PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson, now responds to the wayward "Rusty" (bolding added by me):
A couple of comments relevant to various things in this thread:
To begin with, Rusty says that "T.C. did exactly the same thing to me that D.C. and C.A. did to Pete - prefer hearsay over sworn testimony, and reverse the burden of proof from respondent to me. I'm a smart man, but I am not skilled enough to fight this kind of stuff, and do not have the resources to recover if I fail. "A man's got to know his own limitations."" Unfortunately, the actual lesson to be learned here is being missed.
As I have discussed in detail in the newsletter posts concerning the current petition to the Supreme Court, the nature of the lower courts' behavior in the lawsuit against Doreen and me to which Rusty refers renders their judgments void, and, as posted in the current edition, it has become clear to me that this was done deliberately in order to protect the actors from personal liability and to allow the bogus rulings to stand undisturbed for the sake of their PR value against the truth in the minds of those who look no deeper than the superficial. (I have said this to all of you a thousand times, and apparently must say it again: READ EVERY NEWSLETTER! EVERY NEWSLETTER.)
The same can be said about Rusty's case. Indeed, it is my understanding that, just as is the case in this "lawsuit" against Doreen and me, Rusty hasn't actually haven't ever had any property taken from him in connection with the circumstances over which he is suing, and in connection with which a similarly meaningless ruling was issued. He simply hasn't gotten his property returned yet. This is, of course, property which the feds would have been keeping-- and perhaps then some-- had Rusty not learned the truth about the tax, and thus known to demand its return in the first place, the prosecution of which claim can continue as things now stand, but which would have been forever foregone had he remained a victim of ignorance.
Again, just as in the "lawsuit" against Doreen and me, the Tax Court DIDN'T actually dispute anything taught in CtC-- instead it deliberately contorted itself itself so as to avoid having to address what is taught in CtC, per Rusty's account. Thus, as Patrick observes elsewhere in this thread, the court thereby actually affirms that teaching. Remember, the court wouldn't dodge the contest if it had any way of winning it; that it DID dodge that contest must be afforded its due significance. Further, of course, the government creeping off with a "ruling" that simply denies Rusty his victory is hardly a win for its side, either. In fact, it is a flat-out loss, in reality, since in failing to address what Rusty presented the government has conceded that it cannot prevail on the merits, but can only manage to delay and obstruct. This may be an annoyance for Rusty, but it is solid evidence of who's right about the law for everyone else, and should simply be viewed as more traction for the spreading of the truth and more fuel for the ongoing effort to restore the rule of law.
On another matter, reference is made in this thread to Joe Fennell's petition to tax court, and his loss. It is important that it be understood that Joe's case involved years before even the publishing of CtC, and in regard to which he had ignored "notices of deficiency" and passed up his opportunity to contest the associated assertions of liability for years in which he had filed no returns (or "Schiff" returns-- I can't recall which, offhand). Joe subsequently argued that the NODs were defective or illegitimate, and had points to make in that regard (even if hyper-technical points), but his case can in no way be cited as an example of a litigant prosecuting a case involving CtC-educated behavior. At best it was a case of a newly CtC-educated litigant trying to recover from bad past practices by belatedly invoking new knowledge.
Early on in this thread there is a discussion of the significance of 'case law', and how it is to be understood. That discussion misses some important points. It is certainly true that what is really just "dicta" is in and of itself largely irrelevant in establishing meaningful precedent, but even that is not entirely so. What a court says in the course of a decision often indicates its view and understanding of a subject, and how it would rule if the immediate object of the dicta were actually squarely before that court. This is why dicta is routinely cited, and by the government no less than by any other litigant.
On the comments about precedent and dicta, it sounds like Pete has been reading my posts in a thread on another web site over the past few days, or else he never saw my comments but has actually learned something from all his "study" over the years. In any case, I give him his due on these comments about dicta. Of course, Pete is just as bad as his followers about citing dicta and then arguing that the words somehow mean that the law is
somehow something other than what the courts have actually ruled.
Pete continues:
Further, of course, what the sly and dissembling 'Larry Williams' of the IRS (and/or its invested, symbiotic "tax profession") wishes to obscure is that the words of the courts cited throughout CtC, and in related or expansionary work such as that at
http://www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf , ARE fully consistent with, and reflective of, what was actually decided by the courts in the cases involved. It is 'Larry Williams' and the IRS that are reduced to trotting out completely irrelevant "dicta" from cases like Latham and Sullivan, in which the courts explicitly say that the matter to which the government-cited dicta relates IS NOT actually before the court, and IS NOT reflected in the actual decisions, or in which the court actually says nothing meaningful-- and these are the best these mendacious thugs can come up with! (See
http://losthorizons.com/tax/faq.htm#Frivolous for more on this.)
Uh, oh, Pete, you're off into the weeds again. Fortunately for you, your followers are no better than you are at separating precedent from dicta in cases like
Sullivan.
Finally, why is anyone in this community paying the least attention to self-interested prevaricators like 'Larry Williams', or other purveyors of disinformation from places like quatloos? Surely you all understand that their mission is to confuse you, discourage you, and lead you back into the pen!
Does it not occur to you to wonder why folks like this spend their time arguing with you, or communicating with you at all, in any fashion? Do you imagine that they do so out of what they mean to be altruism? That they spend their time on you because they're just looking out for their fellow Americans out of the sincere goodness of the hearts, and generosity of their spirits? People, grow up! Your mother might do such a thing, for you. No one else will. 'Larry' has an agenda, and it does not involve looking after your best interests. In any event, unless 'Larry Williams' is arguing on behalf of the rule of law, who cares what he or anyone else of his kind has to say, regardless of his motives?
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 8480#18480"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
