At losthorizons dot com, SkankBeat writes:
If you followed Peter Hendrickson's case, you will note that collusion between court officers occurred to establish elements b [making of a false statement] and d [statement was made with knowledge of its falsity] for perjury, such as keeping CTC ["Cracking the Code", the tax scam book by Peter E. Hendrickson] out of evidence. CTC would have been the death blow to the government's case because it would become an issue of fact whether CTC is true or not. Evidence that the government failed three times to suppress the book for being false would speak for itself. Thus it was critical to keep CTC out of evidence, out of the case- out of view.
Question, why has CTC not been submitted into evidence in appeal? Certainly CTC is the "fascinating truth" that provides adequate defense to rebut the elements of perjury? How could the prosecution get indictment for perjury unless this evidence was suppressed from the get-go? Why all this focus on "person"? If perjury is the core issue, then this "person" issue is the largest of red herrings, the classic shiny object. Suckers BEWARE!
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... &start=195
Let's take this piece by piece.
SkankBeat wrote:
If you followed Peter Hendrickson's case, you will note that collusion between court officers occurred to establish elements b and d for perjury, such as keeping CTC out of evidence.
No, you will not note any "collusion." If there had been collusion, then you, SkankBeat, would have identified it yourself. YOU would have noted it. Merely claiming that there was collusion does not constitute establishing that there was collusion.
CTC would have been the death blow to the government's case because it would become an issue of fact whether CTC is true or not.
Well, to be precise, the issue (or, at least, one issue) is whether Hendrickson's statements on his tax return were true. Hendrickson claimed zero income from wages, when in fact he knew -- he was aware -- that he had been paid. Hendrickson's reporting of zero wages was based on his contention that what he was paid did not fit the legal definition of "wages" under the tax law.
Whether he was paid for working for some company is a question of fact. Whether what he was paid constituted "wages" (or to be more precise, whether it constituted "compensation for services" under Internal Revenue Code section 61) is a question of law, not a question of fact. [EDIT: On second thought, "whether what he received was compensation for services" could be a question of fact, while "whether compensation for services is generally includible in gross income" would be the question of law --
narrowly framed].
Questions of fact are addressed by presenting "evidence." With some possible exceptions not material to this discussion, questions of law are not addressed by presenting "evidence"; they're addressed by (for example) filing a legal memorandum or brief with the court, arguing that the law is such and such. Generally, questions of law are decided by the judge, not by the jury.
Let's take a question: "Is the pay you receive for providing services to someone includible in gross income as 'compensation for services' under section 61?" That's a question of law, not a question of fact. That question cannot be answered by introducing "evidence" in the form of a copy of "Cracking the Code," by Peter E. Hendrickson. Under the rules of law, a jury would not look at the book "Cracking the Code" to determine the answer to that question. Indeed, the jury would not be presented with that question at all. Instead, the Judge would INSTRUCT the jury on what the law is, often in a set of written instructions that summarize the law in (hopefully) layman's terms. The judge would not give the jury a copy of the Constitution, or a copy of the statutes, or a copy of the cases, or a copy of the regulations, or a copy of "Cracking the Code", for the purpose of having the jury try to figure out what the law is, because under our legal system it is not the job of the jury to try to figure out what the law is. The job of the jury is to take the JUDGE's explanation of what the law is and APPLY that explanation to the EVIDENCE (which covers only questions of FACT) and reach a verdict.
Evidence that the government failed three times to suppress the book for being false would speak for itself....
I'm not sure that the government has ever really tried to suppress the book itself. Maybe they did. I'm also not sure the government has "failed three times to suppress the book." Again, whether the book accurately describes the law might, for some limited purpose, be treated a question of fact. But you would not admit the book into evidence for the
purpose of determining
what the law is. Determining "what the law is" is not a function of determining a question of fact, but instead involves determining a question of law. Questions of law, in this context, are not normally determined by admission of "evidence," and are not presented to a jury for the
purpose of having the jury try to
figure out what the law is.
Question, why has CTC not been submitted into evidence in appeal? Certainly CTC is the "fascinating truth" that provides adequate defense to rebut the elements of perjury?
If Pete Hendrickson tried to have a copy of the book entered into evidence and the judge did not allow it, the Court of Appeals might indeed look at the book -- but not for purposes of
determining whether the book correctly explains the law. Instead, the Court of Appeals would look at the book to determine
whether the TRIAL COURT made an error in refusing to allow the book to be admitted as evidence. I don't remember whether Hendrickson tried to have the book entered into evidence. If he didn't try, then he probably cannot argue successfully that the Trial Court made an error on that point.
Why all this focus on "person"? If perjury is the core issue, then this "person" issue is the largest of red herrings, the classic shiny object. Suckers BEWARE
Yes, good question. Why the focus on the legal definition of "person"? Answer:
Peter Hendrickson is the one who raised the issue of the definition of "person", not the government. And you are correct -- it IS A RED HERRING. So, Einstein, maybe
you should ask Pete why he raised the issue.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet