I bet you have nothing to post...or add. just pick , pick, pick, pick on and on and on.Imalawman wrote: I'm going to add a line to my resume that says, "historical figure". Wow, that's some ego right there.
Hendrickson's new attorney
-
- Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:48 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
-
- Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
- Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
You don't find adding a line about yourself titled, "historical figure" a bit humorously pretentious? I think its hilarious.Noah wrote:I bet you have nothing to post...or add. just pick , pick, pick, pick on and on and on.Imalawman wrote: I'm going to add a line to my resume that says, "historical figure". Wow, that's some ego right there.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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.
-
- J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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.)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.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
-
- Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:10 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
Any updates in the criminal case? Is Pete's motion to dismiss still in limbo?
"Pride cometh before thy fall."
--Dantonio 11:03:07
--Dantonio 11:03:07
Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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).Red Cedar PM wrote:Any updates in the criminal case? Is Pete's motion to dismiss still in limbo?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
A Motion in Limine has been filed by Mark Lane in PH's trial. The full motion can be seen here.
Some excerpts:
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.
How about the term "evolved concept" to describe PH's baloney?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.
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].”
-
- Quatloosian Master of Deception
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
- Location: Sanhoudalistan
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
Hendrickson can barely distinguish the two positions himself.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.
Cracking the Code, page vii.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.
Followed immediately by a fake quote from Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, setting the tone for the rest of the book.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].”
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
-
- Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:48 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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.
Poor Pete... he is even WRONG on that statement. The Government has to love him on that one.
-
- Infidel Enslaver
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
Pete is toast, see, e.g., Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff, etc.
He'd better start packing about a 12 year supply of toothbrushes ......
He'd better start packing about a 12 year supply of toothbrushes ......
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
I would love to hear you explain why.Noah wrote: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.
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
Said language differing significantly from what poopy-head Peat wrote.26 USC wrote: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: ...
-
- Quatloosian Master of Deception
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
- Location: Sanhoudalistan
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
Poopy-head Peat was misquoted. What he wrote in the foreword is:Nikki wrote:Said language differing significantly from what poopy-head Peat wrote.26 USC wrote: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: ...
That is possibly the last true statement in CTC.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"...
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
-
- Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:48 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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.
-
- Quatloosian Master of Deception
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
- Location: Sanhoudalistan
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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 wrote: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.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
-
- Exalted Parter of the Great Sea of Insanity
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:48 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
To explain it in terms you can relate to, I need to know your definition of "subject to" .Quixote wrote: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 wrote: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.
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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?
-
- Quatloosian Master of Deception
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
- Location: Sanhoudalistan
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
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.Noah wrote:To explain it in terms you can relate to, I need to know your definition of "subject to" .Quixote wrote: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 wrote: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.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
-
- Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:43 pm
Re: Hendrickson's new attorney
OK here goes... kings have subjects. Sovereign citizens are not subjects. Ergo, sovereigns can't be taxed. QED.