Hendrickson says picture a child with its hands over its ear

[jg]

In the newsletter at http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

The District Court Has Done It Again...

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"? It means they are dead in the water, and know it, but will still shamelessly persist in attempting to intimidate the timid and confuse the confused for as long as it appears to be working...

As expected (and predicted on this page long ago), district court judge Nancy Edmunds has refused to abandon her February 26 accommodation of the IRS in its PR "lawsuit" against my wife and me, and re-affirmed the same on May 2. Again, though disappointing, this came as no surprise. Indeed, our notice of appeal was filed weeks ago.

As usual, we are all reminded in her rulings (here and here) about how wrong anyone would be to contend that "wages are not income" (no argument here, of course). No mention is made whatsoever of what is actually pointed out in CtC (such as that not all earnings are "wages"...).

As has been the case previously, being unable to dispute what really IS said, the court says that what is said is what it really is not, in an attempt to transform it into something the court CAN dispute. In so doing, the court is once again implicitly admitting that it cannot dispute what is actually said, just as its Constitutionally impermissible (and thus pointless) attempt to coerce changed testimony on our tax returns implicitly admits that without our sworn declaration that our earnings were, in fact "income", they are, in fact, not, and the government can lay no lawful claim to a tax thereon.

One can't help but picture a child with its hands over its ears, its eyes tightly shut, and its mouth making loud noises in order to drown out unwanted words...

A press release in response to this "ruling" can be downloaded here.Please help spread it around.
Contributions to the Legal Offense Fund would be especially appreciated now, as well.

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate"-Thomas Jefferson

Indeed, Mr. Hendrickson does fit very well the image of a child with its hands over its ears, its eyes tightly shut, and its mouth making loud noises in order to drown out unwanted words...

[rachel]

In the newsletter at http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

The District Court Has Done It Again...

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"? It means they are dead in the water, and know it, but will still shamelessly persist in attempting to intimidate the timid and confuse the confused for as long as it appears to be working...

As expected (and predicted on this page long ago), district court judge Nancy Edmunds has refused to abandon her February 26 accommodation of the IRS in its PR "lawsuit" against my wife and me, and re-affirmed the same on May 2. Again, though disappointing, this came as no surprise. Indeed, our notice of appeal was filed weeks ago.

As usual, we are all reminded in her rulings (here and here) about how wrong anyone would be to contend that "wages are not income" (no argument here, of course). No mention is made whatsoever of what is actually pointed out in CtC (such as that not all earnings are "wages"...).

As has been the case previously, being unable to dispute what really IS said, the court says that what is said is what it really is not, in an attempt to transform it into something the court CAN dispute. In so doing, the court is once again implicitly admitting that it cannot dispute what is actually said, just as its Constitutionally impermissible (and thus pointless) attempt to coerce changed testimony on our tax returns implicitly admits that without our sworn declaration that our earnings were, in fact "income", they are, in fact, not, and the government can lay no lawful claim to a tax thereon.

One can't help but picture a child with its hands over its ears, its eyes tightly shut, and its mouth making loud noises in order to drown out unwanted words...

A press release in response to this "ruling" can be downloaded here.Please help spread it around.
Contributions to the Legal Offense Fund would be especially appreciated now, as well.

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate"-Thomas Jefferson

Indeed, Mr. Hendrickson does fit very well the image of a child with its hands over its ears, its eyes tightly shut, and its mouth making loud noises in order to drown out unwanted words...

Hendrickson never discloses to his readers in CtC how Social Security defines and treats a "trade or business" for those participating in Social Security.
Social Security Handbook

1126.1 Are public office functions a trade or business?
The performance of functions of a public office is excluded by the Social Security law from the term "trade or business." A "public office" includes any elective or appointive office of the Federal Government, of a State or its political subdivisions, or of a wholly-owned instrumentality..

Proving Pete Hendrickson is argueing a frivolous position in relation to 3401(c) in respect to 3401(a).
Any sixth grader can understand that common employer under the Social Security laws is not an elective or appointive office.

1126.2 What public offices are covered by this exclusion?
Public offices not considered a trade or business include, among many others, the President, the Vice President, members of the President's Cabinet, governors, mayors, members of Congress, State representatives, county commissioners, judges, county or city attorneys, marshals, sheriffs, registrars of deeds, and notaries public

So why does he rebut the self-presumption of being a 3401(c) employee when clearly hes not in anyway a federal or state employed individual.
You cant tell him or show him the law as written. He doesnt even beleive his own summary judgment!
The 7701 "trade or business" doesnt specify the functions of a "trade or business" as does Social security.

1101.2 What are the guidelines for determining "trade or business" activity?
"Trade or business" is not specifically defined in section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, certain guidelines for deciding whether a trade or business exists have been set forth in court decisions and Internal Revenue Service rulings. Briefly stated, these guidelines are:
1. You started and carried on the activity in good faith with the intention of making a profit or producing income;
2. You carried on the activity regularly, with a continuity of operation, a continual repetition of transactions, or a regularity of activities;
3. The activity is your regular occupation or calling that you carry on to make a living or a profit; and
4. You present yourself to the public as being engaged in the selling of goods and/or services.
Any one of these factors standing alone is not enough to show that a trade or business exists, but not all the factors need be present

Pete must beleive his employer doesnt present itself to the public as being engaged in the selling of goods and/or services. Nor will Pete allow himself to beleive that his 3121(b) "employment" of whatever nature with his employer is for such presented services to the public

26USC 1402
CHAPTER 2—TAX ON SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME
(b) Self-employment income
The term “self-employment income” means the net earnings from self-employment derived by an individual (other than a nonresident alien individual, except as provided by an agreement under section 233 of the Social Security Act) during any taxable year; except that such term shall not include—
(1) in the case of the tax imposed by section 1401 (a), that part of the net earnings from self-employment which is in excess of
(i) an amount equal to the contribution and benefit base (as determined under section 230 of the Social Security Act) which is effective for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins, minus
(ii) the amount of the wages paid to such individual during such taxable years; or
(2) the net earnings from self-employment, if such net earnings for the taxable year are less than $400.
For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “wages” (A) includes such remuneration paid to an employee for services included under an agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of section 3121 (l) (relating to coverage of citizens of the United States who are employees of foreign affiliates of American employers), as would be wages under section 3121 (a) if such services constituted employment under section 3121 (b), and (B) includes compensation which is subject to the tax imposed by section 3201 or 3211,.[1] An individual who is not a citizen of the United States but who is a resident of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa shall not, for purposes of this chapter be considered to be a nonresident alien individual. In the case of church employee income, the special rules of subsection (j)(2) shall apply for purposes of paragraph (2).
(c) Trade or business
The term “trade or business”, when used with reference to self-employment income or net earnings from self-employment, shall have the same meaning as when used in section 162 [/b](relating to trade or business expenses), except that such term shall not include—
(1) the performance of the functions of a public office, other than the functions of a public office of a State or a political subdivision thereof with respect to fees received in any period in which the functions are performed in a position compensated solely on a fee basis and in which such functions are not covered under an agreement entered into by such State and the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act;
(2) the performance of service by an individual as an employee, other than—
(A) service described in section 3121 (b)(14)(B) performed by an individual who has attained the age of 18,
(B) service described in section 3121 (b)(16),
(C) service described in section 3121 (b)(11), (12), or (15) performed in the United States (as defined in section 3121 (e)(2)) by a citizen of the United States, except service which constitutes “employment” under section 3121 (y),
(D) service described in paragraph (4) of this subsection,
(E) service performed by an individual as an employee of a State or a political subdivision thereof in a position compensated solely on a fee basis with respect to fees received in any period in which such service is not covered under an agreement entered into by such State and the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act,
(F) service described in section 3121 (b) (20), and
(G) service described in section 3121 (b)(8)(B);
(3) the performance of service by an individual as an employee or employee representative as defined in section 3231;
(4) the performance of service by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order;
(5) the performance of service by an individual in the exercise of his profession as a Christian Science practitioner; or
(6) the performance of service by an individual during the period for which an exemption under subsection (g) is effective with respect to him.
The provisions of paragraph (4) or (5) shall not apply to service (other than service performed by a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a member of such order) performed by an individual unless an exemption under subsection (e) is effective with respect to him.
(d) Employee and wages
The term “employee” and the term “wages” shall have the same meaning as when used in chapter 21 (sec. 3101 and following, relating to Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

Nowhere do I see the mistakenly interpreted Hendrickson "3401(c) employee" mentioned in this section. Its only referencing those employee's who are under FICA laws.
But you cant tell Pete that you cant ignore 3401(a) when interpreting 3401(c)!

[LPC]

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"?

If he truly believes the order is "unenforceable," why did he appeal it? He could have simply ignored it and dared the court to enforce it.

[Quixote]

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"?

If he truly believes the order is "unenforceable," why did he appeal it? He could have simply ignored it and dared the court to enforce it.

Just as in PH's world "wages" doesn't mean wages, "unenforceable" doesn't mean unenforceable.

[John J. Bulten]

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"?

If he truly believes the order is "unenforceable," why did he appeal it? He could have simply ignored it and dared the court to enforce it.

Nice try, Dan, but you changed "remedy" to "order".

The unenforceable remedy is to have Pete refile a processable return containing coerced testimony. By definition, if Pete files a return containing coerced testimony, it is an unprocessable duress return.

Further, Pete did not appeal this order, or this remedy; he appealed the Feb order.

Ignoring it is certainly one of his options, but I don't think he's taking strategy tips from you right now.

[Joey Smith]

The unenforceable remedy is to have Pete refile a processable return containing coerced testimony. By definition, if Pete files a return containing coerced testimony, it is an unprocessable duress return.

Unless of course Pete finally files an accurate return, since then it would make no difference whatsoever if it was filed under duress or not.

The bottom line is that the judge realizes the pertinent facts: Pete Hendrickson is simply a two-bit snake oil salesman who is most afraid of his snake oil gravy train being cut off. There is absolutely no legitimacy to Pete's arguments; none, nada, zip, zilch.

Perhaps with this latest disasterous loss, Pete will finally quit selling his snake oil and go back to blowing up innocent postal employees.

[LPC]

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"?

If he truly believes the order is "unenforceable," why did he appeal it? He could have simply ignored it and dared the court to enforce it.

Nice try, Dan, but you changed "remedy" to "order".

Truly, the paranoid live in a world of terrifying significance.

[Doktor Avalanche]

One gets the distinct impression that PH's lawyer (assuming he has one) would have a better time trying to get him off on charges of animal necrophilia.

"Yes, your honor, my client was not aware the cat was dead prior to his having intercourse with it."

[Doktor Avalanche]

The unenforceable remedy is to have Pete refile a processable return containing coerced testimony. By definition, if Pete files a return containing coerced testimony, it is an unprocessable duress return.

Unless of course Pete finally files an accurate return, since then it would make no difference whatsoever if it was filed under duress or not.

The bottom line is that the judge realizes the pertinent facts: Pete Hendrickson is simply a two-bit snake oil salesman who is most afraid of his snake oil gravy train being cut off. There is absolutely no legitimacy to Pete's arguments; none, nada, zip, zilch.

Perhaps with this latest disasterous loss, Pete will finally quit selling his snake oil and go back to blowing up innocent postal employees.

Apparently he couldn't get that right.

[Demosthenes]

Welcome to Quatloos, Doktor A.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Welcome to Quatloos, Doktor A.

Thank you. After admiring this from afar, it's nice to finally be here.

[John J. Bulten]

Perhaps with this latest disasterous loss, Pete will finally quit selling his snake oil and go back to blowing up innocent postal employees.

Apparently he couldn't get that right.

Doktor, Joey has been making this charge six or seven times recently. I suggest you read the P.S. at the end of this link before joining in.

And welcome from the minority report.

[Demosthenes]

What a hero. Hendrickson secretly wiretapped his close friends in order to get a reduced sentence.

Wouldn't want to be on his client list when his next indictment comes. Crime pays, but information pays more.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Perhaps with this latest disasterous loss, Pete will finally quit selling his snake oil and go back to blowing up innocent postal employees.

Apparently he couldn't get that right.

Doktor, Joey has been making this charge six or seven times recently. I suggest you read the P.S. at the end of this link before joining in.

And welcome from the minority report.

Y'know, if you went to a prison and surveyed the inmates, you would find extremely few who would admit to committing the crime that put them there.

[John J. Bulten]

Apparently he couldn't get that right.

Doktor, Joey has been making this charge six or seven times recently. I suggest you read the P.S. at the end of this link before joining in.

And welcome from the minority report.

Y'know, if you went to a prison and surveyed the inmates, you would find extremely few who would admit to committing the crime that put them there.

Right! And Pete is in that honest minority, because he's admitted conspiracy to possess a destructive device, and failure to file (but not wilfulness). But he did not admit "blowing up innocent postal employees", because he did not blow any up. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

[Demosthenes]

Right! And Pete is in that honest minority, because he's admitted conspiracy to possess a destructive device, and failure to file (but not wilfulness). But he did not admit "blowing up innocent postal employees", because he did not blow any up. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

Read the court documents. His bomb injured a postal carrier.

[John J. Bulten]

Yes, Demo, I understand there was a nebulous claim of eye injury from the flash device, and I will be happy to stipulate that the court may have found that injury factual. Did you want to evidence "blowing up innocent postal employees" by any meaning of the words "blowing up" and "employees"? "Innocent" might play in, too, considering the nature of the postal workers' claim as described at that link. But I will also be happy to stipulate that the workers' behavior was "postal".

[Dezcad]

... because he's admitted conspiracy to possess a destructive device, and failure to file (but not wilfulness).

Since you know so much about Pete, what Code Section did he admit to violating for his "failure to file (but not wilfulness)"?

[wserra]

Right! And Pete is in that honest minority, because he's admitted conspiracy to possess a destructive device

From your link:

On the day before jury selection was to begin, being faced with a judge who did not uphold a single one of our pre-trial motions, and in fact, made clear that he was hostile to us, rather than objective, I agreed to plead "guilty" to charges of "conspiracy to possess a destructive device"

Nice "admission". Sounds to me as though Cobalt Shiva had it exactly right.

[Demosthenes]

Yes, Demo, I understand there was a nebulous claim of eye injury from the flash device, and I will be happy to stipulate that the court may have found that injury factual. Did you want to evidence "blowing up innocent postal employees" by any meaning of the words "blowing up" and "employees"? "Innocent" might play in, too, considering the nature of the postal workers' claim as described at that link. But I will also be happy to stipulate that the workers' behavior was "postal".

Grotesque rationalization, even for a tax cheat.