Hendrickson's new attorney

[Noah]

I'm going to add a line to my resume that says, "historical figure". Wow, that's some ego right there.

I bet you have nothing to post...or add. just pick , pick, pick, pick on and on and on.

[Imalawman]

I'm going to add a line to my resume that says, "historical figure". Wow, that's some ego right there.

I bet you have nothing to post...or add. just pick , pick, pick, pick on and on and on.

You don't find adding a line about yourself titled, "historical figure" a bit humorously pretentious? I think its hilarious.

[Paul]

I had a judge jump in on the direct examination of an expert right after he stated his name, to ask opposing counsel if he would accept him as an expert. He said he never listened to experts reciting their credentials just to impress him ever since he had Paul Samuelson testify, and it took him until page 3 of his resume to mention his Nobel prize. He said that if he had won the prize, he would have changed his middle name to Nobel, and that after reading that resume, every expert's credentials just made him think they were amateurs.

[Dr. Caligari]

He said he never listened to experts reciting their credentials just to impress him ever since he had Paul Samuelson testify, and it took him until page 3 of his resume to mention his Nobel prize.

Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the epitaph that he wanted on his tombstone, didn't have room to mention that he was President of the United States for two terms. (He included the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Religious Liberty, and the founding of the University of Virginia.)

[Red Cedar PM]

Any updates in the criminal case? Is Pete's motion to dismiss still in limbo?

[Famspear]

Any updates in the criminal case? Is Pete's motion to dismiss still in limbo?

No sign of any ruling yet on the motion (as of Monday 24 August at 6:48 pm eastern time, 5:48 pm central time).

[Dezcad]

A Motion in Limine has been filed by Mark Lane in PH's trial. The full motion can be seen here.

Some excerpts:

Very likely the defendant was indicted due to the fact that he had published a book entitled “Cracking the Code,” twelve years after the conviction and that the government “began to observe taxpayers filing form 1040 tax returns which reported ‘zero’ or no income.”

The government was embarrassed because the special division it had established to look into frivolous returns had apparently looked into Mr. Hendrickson’s returns for two years and had sent refunds to him. Mr. Hendrickson had made no fraudulent statement in his application. He utilized the form provided by the IRS and informed the IRS that taxes had been withheld and that it was his belief that they should be returned to him.

Should the Court permit the government to present evidence of this highly prejudicial episode, one that bears no relationship to the evolved concept applied by Mr. Hendrickson almost two decades later, it would require the trial of three cases. The government wishes to show a vast amount of information to the jury regarding an event that took place on April 16, 1991, nearly two decades ago.

How about the term "evolved concept" to describe PH's baloney?

In short, the government wishes to extricate itself from its embarrassing position by trying a case different from the one set forth in the indictment. However, a reasonable observer can easily distinguish between any position that Mr. Hendrickson might have taken in 1991 and the position that he has taken since then. His book, “Cracking the Code,” published in 2003, begins:
Let’s get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says: “there is hereby imposed a taxable income of … [a tax of varying percentages].”

[Quixote]

However, a reasonable observer can easily distinguish between any position that Mr. Hendrickson might have taken in 1991 and the position that he has taken since then.

Hendrickson can barely distinguish the two positions himself.

Until some point within the last year, my faith in the integrity, indeed the lawfulness, of the U.S. Supreme Court was in a sad state of disrepair, and had been for many years. In
light of the obvious unconstitutionality of the "income" tax-- as enforced against private citizens within the 50 states-- the failure of the court to declare it so seemed an incontrovertible indictment. At the very least, respect for the rule of law demanded that the apparently incomprehensible statute be ruled void for vagueness, but for all the many years that this tax has been with us, it has been permitted to remain, largely unscathed.

Last year, my faith was restored. Well, that's actually far too strong a statement-- the court still has much to answer for, regarding the "income" tax and a good deal else. But as far as the Constitutionality of that tax as written is concerned, all is well, for the IRC passes Constitutional muster.

Cracking the Code, page vii.

His book, “Cracking the Code,” published in 2003, begins:
Let’s get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says: “there is hereby imposed a taxable income of … [a tax of varying percentages].”

Followed immediately by a fake quote from Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, setting the tone for the rest of the book.

[Noah]

Pete 's quote........"Let’s get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says: “there is hereby imposed a taxable income of … [a tax of varying percentages].”

Poor Pete... he is even WRONG on that statement. The Government has to love him on that one.

[Joey Smith]

Pete is toast, see, e.g., Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff, etc.

He'd better start packing about a 12 year supply of toothbrushes ......

[RyanMcC]

Pete 's quote........"Let’s get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says: “there is hereby imposed a taxable income of … [a tax of varying percentages].”

Poor Pete... he is even WRONG on that statement. The Government has to love him on that one.

I would love to hear you explain why.

[Nikki]

26 U.S.C. § 1 : US Code - Section 1: Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is: ...

Said language differing significantly from what poopy-head Peat wrote.

[Quixote]

26 U.S.C. § 1 : US Code - Section 1: Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is: ...

Said language differing significantly from what poopy-head Peat wrote.

Poopy-head Peat was misquoted. What he wrote in the foreword is:

Let's get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section l(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [a tax of varying percentages]" Pretty straightforward. Of course, it does raise the question of exactly what is taxable ''income"...

That is possibly the last true statement in CTC.

[Noah]

Pete shouted in caps...... "IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX".... that is flat out WRONG.....so still looking for truth in CTC.

[Quixote]

Pete shouted in caps...... "IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX".... that is flat out WRONG.....so still looking for truth in CTC.

We're still waiting for your rationale for that assertion. If you were right, you could provide an example of someone who has taxable income but who is not subject to the income tax.

[Noah]

Pete shouted in caps...... "IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX".... that is flat out WRONG.....so still looking for truth in CTC.

We're still waiting for your rationale for that assertion. If you were right, you could provide an example of someone who has taxable income but who is not subject to the income tax.

To explain it in terms you can relate to, I need to know your definition of "subject to" .

[Nikki]

Since there isn't a specific definition of the term in 26USC, why don't you start from the simple English language meaning of the words?

[Quixote]

Pete shouted in caps...... "IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX".... that is flat out WRONG.....so still looking for truth in CTC.

We're still waiting for your rationale for that assertion. If you were right, you could provide an example of someone who has taxable income but who is not subject to the income tax.

To explain it in terms you can relate to, I need to know your definition of "subject to" .

I have never defined "subject to", although I suspect the courts have. I don't need to know the precise meaning to know that someone with taxable income is subject to the income tax. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that someone with taxable income has a tax liability before the application of credits. You presumably knew what "subject to" meant when you made the statement. I doubt that the meaning has changed in the last ten minutes.

[Lambkin]

OK here goes... kings have subjects. Sovereign citizens are not subjects. Ergo, sovereigns can't be taxed. QED.