What are the chances???

[Gregg]

With Pete's sentencing coming up, is thier any possibility of the court making a statement to the effect of "What this man says the law says is wrong, the 50 states are indeed part of The United States, gross income IS everything that comes in unless listed somewhere as not, etc etc etc...." and shooting down a few of the rationalizations that I know are going to be coming? As it is now, Pete and the flock are putting forth the idea that he was only convicted on some "lawyer trick" thingy, that the court was "afraid to rule on the real issues" and stuff like that. I mean, aside from a gameshow where Patrick Mooney gets a shot from a crank telephone every time someone misses a question about the meaning of "Includes" is there any chance the sentencing can do something to persuade at least a few of the fools to give up the ghost?

[bmielke]

I would love to see it, but I don't think it's going to happen...

Even if it did happen the Lostheads would find some way to rationalize and minimize the judge's ruleing, and/or parts would be taken so far out of context that TP/TD movements would have material for the next decade.

[wserra]

With Pete's sentencing coming up, is thier any possibility of the court making a statement to the effect of "What this man says the law says is wrong, the 50 states are indeed part of The United States, gross income IS everything that comes in unless listed somewhere as not, etc etc etc...."

That has already happened. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the DC's grant of summary judgment to the govt in the Hendricksons' civil case, in the process sanctioning them for "the patent baselessness of the Hendricksons’ assertions".

Do you think that mattered to the numbnuts who worship at the Cracked Altar? Why should this court's opinion be different?

[Pottapaug1938]

With Pete's sentencing coming up, is there any possibility of the court making a statement to the effect of "What this man says the law says is wrong, the 50 states are indeed part of The United States, gross income IS everything that comes in unless listed somewhere as not, etc etc etc...."

That has already happened. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the DC's grant of summary judgment to the govt in the Hendricksons' civil case, in the process sanctioning them for "the patent baselessness of the Hendricksons’ assertions".

Do you think that mattered to the numbnuts who worship at the Cracked Altar? Why should this court's opinion be different?

It probably won't make a difference to the CtC crowd. The only way that they would POSSIBLY be satisfied is if they had the chance to go before the Supreme Court and argue their idiocies; and then, even if the Court shot each and every one of them down in an exhaustive opinion, the CtCers would simply say that the Court has been bought off, that they ruled as they did because they feared IRS audits, because Big Papi isn't hitting... ANYTHING.

[nationwide]

NONE

[Gregg]

If we don't have a policy on multiple user names, I think we now have an argument in favor of one.

[Famspear]

NONE

Hey Harvester/nationwide/johnthetaxist, what are the chances that Peter Eric Hendrickson will be sentenced to prison on Monday, April 19th?

And what's the status of your prediction that Hendrickson will "never be sentenced"?

[Nikki]

Until the day comes that a unanimous Supreme Court issues a decision stating:

You, Harvester, are a maroon. All of your legal theories are inane, irrelevant, and (most importantly) totally wrong. You, in specific, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and are required to pay the federal income tax on your income (and your arguments regarding wages, income, federal connectivity are crap).

Harvester won't accept any legal action. Even it the above happens, he'll still be whining that they didn't say double-dog-swear.

In fact, when the day comes that the Marshalls drag him from his double-wide, he'll still be maintaining his superior legal knowledge and attributing all the reverses to a conspiracy and to paid-off judges.

Once people have effected 100% KoolAid transfusions, there's no hope for them. Despite the presence here of a couple of reformed TPs, the majority of them out there are going to flit from one guru to the next and continue to ignore the fact that the fault is not in their stars.

[Harvester]

Yes Nikki, I am subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and am required to pay the federal income tax on my income (above the statutory exemption). The simple fact is, very little of the money I make qualifies as income under the Revenue Acts. It's not rocket science.

I see that I make "CaptainQueerBack" randy too, as he responds to most of my posts as well.

[Famspear]

The simple fact is, very little of the money I make qualifies as income under the Revenue Acts. It's not rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science, and it's not a "simple fact" either. What we have here is your own refusal to accept that you're wrong. Under the Internal Revenue Code, everything you earn qualifies as income except as otherwise exempted by law. And there is no exemption for earnings in an activity not involving a federal privilege. There never has been, and there probably never will be.

No statute says that your earnings in an activity not involving a federal privilege are not part of "income." No court has ever ruled that earnings in an activity not involving a federal privilege are not part of "income." Hendrickson is wrong. You are wrong.

[LPC]

Yes Nikki, I am subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and am required to pay the federal income tax on my income (above the statutory exemption). The simple fact is, very little of the money I make qualifies as income under the Revenue Acts. It's not rocket science.

You're right, it's not rocket science.

It's not very complicated at all.

So why are you so stupid? Why are you impervious to logic and literacy and common sense? What drove you to delusion and self-destruction?

[Harvester]

Famspire, you're partially correct. Not every use of a swimming pool carries a user fee. My GardenGrove condo association handbook says, pool users are subject to the annual pool user fee. Nowhere in the book does it talk about a user fee not involving a GardenGrove pool (a GardenGrove privilege) . Why? Because it doesn't apply to other pools. GardenGrove can't slap a user fee on my right to use the Smiths pool because the Smiths is outside their jurisdiction. It goes with saying.

Yep, no court has ever ruled that use of a pool not involving a GardenGrove pool was subject to a GardenGrove user fee. You seem quite enamored with this "no court has ever ruled" argument.

[Famspear]

Famspire, you're partially correct. Not every use of a swimming pool carries a user fee. My GardenGrove condo association handbook says, pool users are subject to the annual pool user fee. Nowhere in the book does it talk about a user fee not involving a GardenGrove pool (a GardenGrove privilege) . Why? Because it doesn't apply to other pools. GardenGrove can't slap a user fee on my right to use the Smiths pool because the Smiths is outside their jurisdiction. It goes with saying.

Yep, no court has ever ruled that use of a pool not involving a GardenGrove pool was subject to a GardenGrove user fee. You seem quite enamored with this "no court has ever ruled" argument.

No, Harvester. Hendrickson and others claim, over and over and over and over again, that the court cases - especially the Supreme Court cases - support their position. I am pointing out that there are no such court cases.

Further, every single court that has been presented with Hendrickson's arguments has ruled against them.

We've been through this over and over and over again, Harvester. The law hasn't changed since that last time we went over this.

And, in a little over 24 hours from now, Peter Hendrickson is scheduled to be sentenced for using the same Cracking the Code scheme that you have essentially admitted to using.

[LPC]

Not every use of a swimming pool carries a user fee. My GardenGrove condo association handbook says, pool users are subject to the annual pool user fee. Nowhere in the book does it talk about a user fee not involving a GardenGrove pool (a GardenGrove privilege) . Why? Because it doesn't apply to other pools. GardenGrove can't slap a user fee on my right to use the Smiths pool because the Smiths is outside their jurisdiction. It goes with saying.

God, you're a moron.

It's the *owners* of the condo that pay the user fees, not the *employees*. If you want to use the pool, you have to pay the user fee even if you have no pool-related income.

And it's an *annual* fee that you pay for the *right* to use the pool. Whether you actually use the pool is irrelevant. You can't claim a refund at the end of the year on the grounds that you never used the pool, or didn't use it that much, or because other people used it more than you did.

Think of the United States as a condo association with lots of different facilities, like security, courts, roads, and parks. You want to live in the condo but you want to pick and choose what fees you think you should pay, ignoring the rules and regulations voted on by the other condo owners. So you refuse to pay the fees, but you don't move out either. You're just a freeloading trespasser, and it's a shame we can't evict you. However, if you refuse to pay fees long enough and blatantly enough, we can move you to a different condo, one with bars on the windows.

[Joe Dirt]

LPC wrote:

Think of the United States as a condo association with lots of different facilities, like security, courts, roads, and parks. You want to live in the condo but you want to pick and choose what fees you think you should pay, ignoring the rules and regulations voted on by the other condo owners. So you refuse to pay the fees, but you don't move out either. You're just a freeloading trespasser, and it's a shame we can't evict you. However, if you refuse to pay fees long enough and blatantly enough, we can move you to a different condo, one with bars on the windows.

The base flaw in Harv's argument is that he conveniently ignores the costs of construction and maintenance of the pool. He operates under some overdeveloped sense of personal entitlement. Harv shows a pattern of living off the efforts of others. It's too bad that his "three hots and a cot" in the Crowbar Suites will also be taxpayer funded.

If I had my way I'd limit the food consumed by the class of prisoner that Harv aspires to be to roadkill and their own home grown vegetables... I wonder how long Harv would last in a "community" with a rule that if you don't work to gather and grow your food, you starve.

I wonder if a prison trustee would accept his arguments of "privilege".

[Harvester]

No Mister psychopathic liar Famspear, there are dozens of Supreme Court cases which support Hendrickson's premise. Several of them cited in Hendrickson's book. But you've publicly stated to have NEVER READ THE BOOK so you wouldn't know this. Either you're lying, or know not whereof you speak.

LPC, while I may live within the united States, I do not live in a United States condo, and therefore don't owe united States user/pool fees. And no one in my association has pool-related income. Were you born obese or do you have to work at it?

and in case I haven't been clear . . . .

I legally pay no income tax

[ProfHenryHiggins]

LPC, while I may live within the united States, I do not live in a United States condo, and therefore don't owe united States user/pool fees. And no one in my association has pool-related income. Were you born obese or do you have to work at it?

Do you even known what the word "obese" means??

[Doktor Avalanche]

LPC, while I may live within the united States, I do not live in a United States condo, and therefore don't owe united States user/pool fees. And no one in my association has pool-related income. Were you born obese or do you have to work at it?

Do you even known what the word "obese" means??

It doesn't mean the same thing as "obtuse"?

[.]

Our resident kisser of PH's posterior is stomping his little tax-evading foot awfully hard in the face of his hero's imminent consignment to the Bureau of Prisons.

Hey, will that mean that PH's earnings in prison are "federally connected?" Will he file a "CtC educated" return from federal prison? Inquiring minds want to know if PH will be able to violate the terms of his post-release supervision before he's released.

[Pottapaug1938]

No Mister psychopathic liar Famspear, there are dozens of Supreme Court cases which support Hendrickson's premise. Several of them cited in Hendrickson's book. But you've publicly stated to have NEVER READ THE BOOK so you wouldn't know this. Either you're lying, or know not whereof you speak.

LPC, while I may live within the united States, I do not live in a United States condo, and therefore don't owe united States user/pool fees. And no one in my association has pool-related income. Were you born obese or do you have to work at it?

and in case I haven't been clear . . . .

I legally pay no income tax

Harvester, you must REALLY crave incarceration alongside your hero. The fact that you claim that "there are dozens of Supreme Court cases which support Hendrickson's premise" (not realizing that not one of the cases he cites is correctly interpreted by him or is on all fours with the facts of Pete's case) makes it clear that you are just as clueless, when it comes to income tax issues, as he is. Whether or not anyone has read CtC is beside the point -- and I have never read it either and never will. I have no desire to waste my money and add to Petey's income; and I have no desire to wade through a book which has proved to be ineffective in keeping its author out of prison for practicing what he preaches (and spare me that "corrupt courts" BS. The fact that NOT ONE court has EVER upheld CtC principles should tell you something; and any law student can tell you of cases where courts have ruled against the government in numerous instances -- on fairly substantial grounds, too).

I feel sorry for you, Pal. You have this intense need to believe that the CtC principles are true, so in your mind that makes them true (Charlie Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America: Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it). Reality, on the other hand, is much less psychologically comforting -- but it won't get me sent to prison for tax evasion, like Petey.