Hendrickson Finally Admits His Supreme Court Loss

[Nikki]

Assuming PoopyHead is convicted, DoJ should have no difficulty obtaining an injunction against the continued operation of his site and the associated forum.

But why? It's such a rich source of tax evasion confessions and marginally clear descriptions of their planned actions.

[ASITStands]

Assuming PoopyHead is convicted, DoJ should have no difficulty obtaining an injunction against the continued operation of his site and the associated forum.

But why? It's such a rich source of tax evasion confessions and marginally clear descriptions of their planned actions.

And, 'Pablo Rodriguez' is beginning to offer his services here and here.

It looks like Pablo has decided Pete's leadership is not getting the job done and someone else will need to pick up the pieces if Pete's convicted in the forthcoming trial.

Wonder how long Hendrickson will allow him to continue offering his services.

[SteveSy]

Unquestionably? Only if you don't have the slightest clue as to how the Supreme Court works. Even a cursory review of the Court's docket shows dozens of cases which the Court declines to review because there just isn't enough there to merit their consideration. Simply put, it's the Court's way of saying that you have no case.

Anyone knowing how the Supreme Court works knows that's not what that means, even if Pete's case has no merit. The Supreme Court receives thousands of Cert petitions every year and only accepts about a 100. Even if all of the cases had merit it would be impossible for the court to hear them all. The court may hear one over another simply because its more of a politically pressing issue than the other or time may be a critical factor regardless of merit.

Making statements as you have just shows you're not interested in facts and more interested in belittling those who you disagree with.

[Pottapaug1938]

Unquestionably? Only if you don't have the slightest clue as to how the Supreme Court works. Even a cursory review of the Court's docket shows dozens of cases which the Court declines to review because there just isn't enough there to merit their consideration. Simply put, it's the Court's way of saying that you have no case.

Anyone knowing how the Supreme Court works knows that's not what that means, even if Pete's case has no merit. The Supreme Court receives thousands of Cert petitions every year and only accepts about a 100. Even if all of the cases had merit it would be impossible for the court to hear them all. The court may hear one over another simply because its more of a politically pressing issue than the other or time may be a critical factor regardless of merit.

Making statements as you have just shows you're not interested in facts and more interested in belittling those who you disagree with.

Steve, as usual, you didn't read what I said very carefully. I said "dozens of cases", not "all". At any rate, the Court has clearly said that Petey has not articulated a case that requires their attention -- and if you want to talk about "politically pressing issues", the validity of our fundamental tax laws has to rank high on the list.

[Duke2Earl]

Steve has this longstanding fantasy that if the Supreme Court ever did take a full scale look at the application of the income tax to wages they would be "forced" to conclude that the income tax did not apply. He's not too clear on what theory would apply but Steve believes that conclusion would be "apparent." We all have our hopes, Steve. It's just that mine involve a beach house, my dream woman, and a lifetime supply of free money. Neither your hopes nor mine are likely to be realized (except for the dream woman, who I already have).

[LPC]

Let's look at the actual rules of the Supreme Court and how they might apply to a petition for certiorari by Hendrickson (or someone similarly situated):

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;

(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

So, what "compelling reasons" would there be for the Supreme Court to reconsider the constitutionality of the federal income tax?

Subsection (a) does not apply because the Circuit Courts of Appeals are in total agreement, and neither Hendrickson nor any other case has "so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings" as to require review.

Subsection (b) does not apply because state courts do not decide federal tax issues.

Subsection (c) might apply, but only in ways that require denial of cert., because the constitutionality of the federal income tax was settled in the Brushaber decision. So the Supreme Court might grant cert. to review a decision that is in conflict with Brushaber, but that's not going to happen while the Courts of Appeal are in complete agreement with Brushaber.

Now, the Supreme Court has been known to surprise people by taking a case and reversing what had been thought to be settled law, but the idea that the Supreme Court would reverse Brushaber and rule that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says is a pure fantasy shared only by deadbeats, con artists, and crackpots.

Let me put it this way: The odds are better that a total stranger will come to my door within the next five minutes and force me to accept $1,000,000 in cash in small unmarked non-sequential bills.

[LPC]

Let me put it this way: The odds are better that a total stranger will come to my door within the next five minutes and force me to accept $1,000,000 in cash in small unmarked non-sequential bills.

It didn't happen.

[Noah]

Let me put it this way: The odds are better that a total stranger will come to my door within the next five minutes and force me to accept $1,000,000 in cash in small unmarked non-sequential bills.

It didn't happen.

They may take it to address the choke hold on the sale of Benson's "kit" and put to rest the "value" of the 16th amendment as it pertains to the current Income Tax legislation. But would it be in the public intrest to send the 16thers scrambling for a new hook to hang their hats on?

[Pottapaug1938]

Let me put it this way: The odds are better that a total stranger will come to my door within the next five minutes and force me to accept $1,000,000 in cash in small unmarked non-sequential bills.

It didn't happen.

They may take it to address the choke hold on the sale of Benson's "kit" and put to rest the "value" of the 16th amendment as it pertains to the current Income Tax legislation. But would it be in the public intrest to send the 16thers scrambling for a new hook to hang their hats on?

Theoretically, yes; but as SteveSy pointed out, the Court often declines to hear cases even if there is some merit to them, for the reasons set forth by LPC. Since the legal points underpinning the Benson case are well settled in the law, I can't imagine why the Supreme Court would want to spend any time on the issue.

[LPC]

They may take it to address the choke hold on the sale of Benson's "kit"

You mean the 1st Amendment issue? Another non-issue as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that commercial speech may be regulated when it is false, and the circuit courts have been fairly careful to make sure that injunctions under section 6700 are issued narrowly, and only when the materials are not just false, but *knowingly* false.

Regulation of commercial speech will undoubtedly come to the Supreme Court again, but if the court did want to hear a case on regulating commercial speech, would they really want to hear a case in which commercial speech is inciting people to criminal conduct? That's not very appealing.

And if they wanted to hear such a case, they would have heard Schiff's case, because Schiff actually got some serious amicus briefs from 1st Amendment advocates.

As I said, a non-issue.

Hendrickson has also tried to create a 1st Amendment issue of some sort (or some kind of issue) with his claim that he shouldn't be enjoined to file new returns in which he is forced to commit perjury. But that's just silly. He's not being ordered to make any factual misrepresentations, only to file returns that comply with the law. Courts order people to comply with the law all the time, and there shouldn't be any exceptions for the deeply delusional.

and put to rest the "value" of the 16th amendment as it pertains to the current Income Tax legislation.

I'm not sure why "value" is in quotes, or why you think the 16th Amendment pertains to current tax laws differently than it applied to the tax laws at issue in Brushaber in 1916.

The purpose and effect of the 16th Amendment *has* been put to rest, and a non-apportioned federal income tax is constitutional. The existence of people who believe otherwise doesn't create a Supreme Court issue, any more than the existence of people who believe the earth is flat creates a problem for NASA.

[LPC]

the Court often declines to hear cases even if there is some merit to them, for the reasons set forth by LPC.

To elaborate, and as Rule 10 itself points out, the existence of wrongly decided factual issues or wrong apply legal principles is NOT a good reason for review.

The Supreme Court sees itself as an institution that resolves broad legal issues, and does not have the time or the inclination to correct what might be mistakes in individual cases.

And even when there are important legal issues to address, the Supreme Court may refuse to hear a case because the facts underlying the legal issue were badly developed or uncertain, or because of procedural problems that undermine the validity of the lower court record. The Supreme Court likes to hear cases with clear factual records because it is difficult to create clear guidelines for the lower courts based on cases that require assumptions or conjectures about what actually happened, and so might create confusion about the required burden of proof. (I'm not saying that the evidence must be uncontradicted, but that there must be clear findings of fact supported by the evidence and the findings must adequately frame the issue, so that the court can rely on those findings in its analysis.)

[Pottapaug1938]

I remember hearing a maxim, in law school, to the effect that "good cases make bad law". The description of a court case in which the issue is regulation of speech inciting others to criminal conduct is a perfect example.

[LPC]

I remember hearing a maxim, in law school, to the effect that "good cases make bad law". The description of a court case in which the issue is regulation of speech inciting others to criminal conduct is a perfect example.

I think that the expression you're looking for is that hard cases make bad law.

[Pottapaug1938]

I remember hearing a maxim, in law school, to the effect that "good cases make bad law". The description of a court case in which the issue is regulation of speech inciting others to criminal conduct is a perfect example.

I think that the expression you're looking for is that hard cases make bad law.

I've actually heard it both ways, come to think of it. The example I used was the first way.

[Imalawman]

I remember hearing a maxim, in law school, to the effect that "good cases make bad law". The description of a court case in which the issue is regulation of speech inciting others to criminal conduct is a perfect example.

I think that the expression you're looking for is that hard cases make bad law.

I've actually heard it both ways, come to think of it. The example I used was the first way.

I've always heard it said, "bad facts make bad law"...

[LPC]

I remember hearing a maxim, in law school, to the effect that "good cases make bad law". The description of a court case in which the issue is regulation of speech inciting others to criminal conduct is a perfect example.

I think that the expression you're looking for is that hard cases make bad law.

I've actually heard it both ways, come to think of it.

I was once married to a woman who frequently garbled common sayings. Her most memorable include "out of the frying pan and into the skillet" and "don't punch a gift horse in the mouth." I tried to explain that the expression was "don't *look* a gift horse in the mouth," but she thought her version made more sense.

Your garbled version makes no sense to me. I understand "hard cases" to mean a case in which the application of existing law seems unjust. Those kinds of cases can lead to exceptions or qualifications that make the law more complicated and uncertain.

But to a lawyer a "good case" is a case that has support in existing law. How can a good case, founded in existing law, make for bad law? You might was well say that bad cases make good law, or that all cases make bad law.

The example I used was the first way.

And your example makes no sense to me.

First, it's not clear what your example is supposed to be an example of, because you refer to a "description of a court case," which makes me wonder whether you're referring to a bad description of a good case or a good description of a bad case, or something else altogether.

And where is the bad law? Are you saying that the regulation of speech inciting criminal conduct is bad law, and that speech inciting criminal conduct should be protected by the 1st Amendment?

I also want to point out that your example is not an accurate paraphrase of what I wrote, so if your intent was to critique what I wrote then you should go back and re-read what I wrote and try again.

[Pottapaug1938]

And your example makes no sense to me.

First, it's not clear what your example is supposed to be an example of, because you refer to a "description of a court case," which makes me wonder whether you're referring to a bad description of a good case or a good description of a bad case, or something else altogether.

And where is the bad law? Are you saying that the regulation of speech inciting criminal conduct is bad law, and that speech inciting criminal conduct should be protected by the 1st Amendment?

I also want to point out that your example is not an accurate paraphrase of what I wrote, so if your intent was to critique what I wrote then you should go back and re-read what I wrote and try again.

As I recall, the version of this quote which I heard is that even cases with some tangible merit can create bad law, due to their peculiar facts. At any rate -- if you think that your version is the better one, then so be it -- you have more contact with the law, these days, than do I.

And no, I am not saying that regulation of speech inciting criminal conduct is bad law, or that it is protected by the 1st Amendment (as a general rule; but I do remember Mc Carthy-era cases where this rule was applied overly broadly). My comment was prompted by a memory of reading a book (I think that it was one about Justice Douglas) in which a comment was made that the Court denied cert in cases which had considerable merit, but where the facts presented did not allow the Court to hand down a decision which would have been a good statement of the applicable law. At any rate -- whichever version of the maxim is the "correct" one -- I was trying to echo your point that this case would not have been a good one for the Court to hear.

[Noah]

and put to rest the "value" of the 16th amendment as it pertains to the current Income Tax legislation.

I'm not sure why "value" is in quotes, or why you think the 16th Amendment pertains to current tax laws differently than it applied to the tax laws at issue in Brushaber in 1916.

16th amendment pertains basically the same in 1916 and now. Just my opinion but the "value" of the 16th amendment is questionable. Repealing the 16th or finding that it was not ratified would have no effect on the tax laws then or the current laws now.

[Prof]

Arguing about a hackneyed expression is sort of a waste of electrons. If any of you are interested, the origin of the quote can be tracked and has been sometimes attibuted to Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, in Northern Securities Co v United States, 193 US 197, 400 (1904) (Holmes dissenting), said: "Great cases like hard cases make bad law."

For more history, see Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/hard-cases-make-bad-law

[Gregg]

Guys,
I have tried everything I know to explain to the IRS why I filed the way I filed. Correspondence after correspondence. I've taken the neutral position and requested their help in explaining what it is about the tax laws that I'm not understanding. They ignore my pleas and tell me that the information I provided (I didn't supply information - just asked questions) does not substantiate a change in the proposed additional taxes due. They're not evern reading what I send them. The 90 days on my Notice of Deficiency is almost up and I've nowhere to turn. Even talked to a local tax lawyer who refused to take my case. What now?

The tax lawyer refused your case because he doesn't want to deal with an idiot who is going to try to tell him what the law is after reading a book by a convicted felon, and how that's much more relevant than the time he spent in law school and how ever many years he's spent in tax practice. In other words, you're a maroon, and he's good enough not to have to deal with maroons.
My advice, start looking for a shelter now, the winter months they fill up quickly!