Nikki wrote:Does she [attorney Ellen Dennis] actually read what PH writes or just signs and submits it on his say-so?
She's going along with the concepts of both federal privilege and a tax on wages versus income
I was just re-reading the motion to dismiss, and the arguments from CtC are clearly presented as factual background on the content of the book, in the "Statement of Facts," and not as part of the actual legal "Argument." (The motion also repeatedly talks about what the book says and does, and not what Hendrickson says or does, almost as though the book was on trial and not Hendrickson.)
But the weirdest part to me is that the discussion of the book goes on for 4-1/2 pages, and constitutes the entire "Statement of Facts," and yet seems to have no logical connection to the motion. The statement of facts concludes by stating that Hendrickson "remained honestly convinced that his statements on the forms 1040s and 4852s were true and accurate." But so what? That goes to the issue of willfulness, which is a factual issue to be decided at trial. The motion itself argues "selective and vindictive prosecution" and "an attempt to chill" Hendrickson's 1st Amendment rights. But those claims would seem to have nothing to do with whether or not Hendrickson believed what he was saying. (Or does the 1st Amendment protect only sincere speech?)
There is such a jarring disconnect between the statement of facts and the actual legal argument that I suspect that Hendrickson brow-beat his lawyer into allowing him to use the statement of facts as a soapbox, or at least as an opportunity for him to try to vindicate himself pre-trial. That's not good. It's one thing for a lawyer to argue the sincerity of Hendrickson's beliefs to the jury, but to appease his vanity by including this kind of crap in pre-trial pleadings is a bad sign of things to come.