Games - Artwear - Wisdom Wall Art - Stationery - Homeschooling - Don't Tread On Me - Income Tax Truth - Comment - Home |
Readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have already retained or taken back well over
from the federal and state governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'-- and kept it in their own pockets where it belongs, simply by knowing what the law actually says. These Americans have gotten back every penny they've paid or had withheld from them during the year in connection with the "income tax", and have secured written acknowledgements that they owed nothing-- many for several years in a row now.
YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH, TOO!!
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” -Arthur Schopenhauer
“I didn’t say it would be easy, I just said it would be the truth.” -Morpheus
The Rule Of Law Under Assault A Final Escalation In The Government's Corrupt Efforts To Keep More Americans From Learning The Liberating Truth About The Income Tax
And if you want to drill down in depth on the "criminal" assault, and learn how you can help, read on...
Six years or so ago, some IRS paper-pusher made the mistake of his or her career in refusing to accept the return filed by my wife and me, leading to my uncovering the liberating truth about the income tax and putting it down on paper for anyone to read and learn for themselves in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' (CtC). Three months after publishing the first edition of that book, I became the first American in history to secure the return of ALL of the property that had been withheld from me and turned over to the federal government in connection with the income tax-- Social Security and Medicare "contributions" included. This was the first of thousands of such victories in insisting on the proper application of the law by readers of CtC which continue to this day.
A year later, some higher-level IRS stooge did it again, taking me repeatedly into court in efforts to suppress my book. These efforts revolved around purported challenges to the accuracy of what is presented in CtC. All were defeated-- indeed, the government actually surrendered in every contest, and itself moved the courts to dismiss each assault on the book upon realizing that it couldn't make it's case.
Two years after that, a still-higher-level thug pushed the agency and the DoJ to try to slow the spread of the truth about the tax by filing a "lawsuit" against my wife and me, in which the federal courts are asked to order us to testify to the government's specifications in order to create a pretense under which we could be held liable for taxes which even the Treasury Department's own internal records admit that we don't owe. This has proven to be a sustained, still-ongoing embarrassment to the agency, the DoJ, and the courts (and yet another definitive affirmation of the accuracy of what is revealed in CtC).
Now another batch of these folks is daring another, and more significant, embarrassment, by charging me with allegedly having "Willfully [made] and [subscribed] any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter." (The details can be seen here.)
At bottom of course, this assault is another effort by the government to evade the plain words of the tax statutes. As has always been the case, and as is unambiguously demonstrated by the practical record of events, I'm being attacked not because what I say is wrong, but because what I say is right.
Due process is in the crosshairs, here, too. The awkward proposition the government is forced to embrace in this latest assault is that one can be punished criminally for simply refusing to affirmatively endorse the government's self-serving pretense about the nature of the tax.
Consider: one has always been punishable for standing silent ("failing to file") if the government has been told that "income" has been paid to one beyond the exemption amount. (One also then faces the prospect that such allegations will be taken as true, since they are uncontested, possibly leading to the establishment of a corresponding tax liability).
These charges against me propose that one can now be punished for NOT standing silent also, if one simply fails to adopt those allegations made by others about the legal character of one's receipts (which is what those allegations really are about-- rather than simply the amount of money that changed hands-- even though those making them seldom understand this)! The end result is the proposition that one can be punished unless one testifies to suit the government's preferences (the doing of which, not coincidentally, always results in a financial gain to the government).
Thus:
THIS IS A RULE OF LAW CASE, Not A "Tax Case"
"But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe... When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." -Thomas Paine
Imagine an America in which, say, a psychiatrist obliged to testify about someone's mental condition in a competency or commitment hearing risks prosecution for perjury if he doesn't express the opinion the government wishes to hear... Think about testimony in parental rights hearings... In legislative hearings... Criminal forensics...
Nauseating thoughts, aren't they?
Now think about the doorway into that America which is opening right before your eyes, as the government makes its first attempt to get away with this kind of mind-bogglingly corrupt evasion of natural and Constitutional law, in order to compel me to endorse its claim to my property, or punish me for refusing to do so. That's what the assault on CtC is all about.
Remember, my odyssey to uncovering the truth about the tax began with the simple proposition that I cannot be compelled to express, by way of a sworn statement on a legal document, a view that I do not actually hold. As is discussed in the introduction to CtC, at the beginning of that odyssey I was routinely submitting tax returns of a “conventional” character, unusual only in that they contained a disclaimer by which I (and Doreen, after our marriage) declined to formally declare our earnings to be “income”, as that term is meant in the relevant law. The government was still taking our property (and never stopped doing so throughout all of the period involved in the charges with which I am being forced to deal in this latest government struggle against the inconveniences of due process and the truth about the tax).
The IRS suddenly refused to accept our 2000 return unless we explicitly made a sworn declaration that our receipts DID qualify as “income” (after years of accepting these returns without a peep). We refused to have that testimony dictated to us, as we did not believe it to be true. The government’s apparent reliance on our doing so prompted my deep research into the subject, by which I learned what DOES qualify as “income”, and why the declaration sought by the government is so important to its scheme for applying the tax to receipts which DO NOT objectively qualify as “income” (obviously, in the case of receipts which DO objectively qualify as “income”, a declaration would neither be needed nor wanted).
Since then, I have merely and simply declared what I believe to be true about my receipts (which declaration necessitates rebutting contrary allegations by others of which I am put on notice by way of “information returns”-- W-2s-- lest I otherwise constructively testify to the substance of those allegations through acquiescing by silence). The process of rebutting these allegations in a legally meaningful way involves the completion of a return, and completing a return to that effect happens to result, by a purely mechanical exercise, in a claim for the return of all withheld property. That end result is not the purpose of the exercise, it is just a byproduct. Speaking freely, honestly and accurately is the purpose.
What these charges are really all about is a government effort to compel me to make a declaration that I know and believe to be untrue. Furthermore, don’t forget that I am effectively compelled to say something, since my silence (failure to file a return) in the face of allegations by others on “information returns” to the effect that I have had receipts qualifying as “income” in more than the exemption amount is treated as a criminal act (even without regard to the adverse economic effect I would be obliged to quietly abide).
This is what this outrageous case is really all about.
Of course, this case concerns the truth of the tax, as well. The fact that hundreds and hundreds of complete refunds of withheld, paid-in and garnisheed property, lien releases, notice of deficiency closing notices, and every other kind of concrete acknowledgement possible (along with innumerable subtler acknowledgments) from the federal and more than 35 state and local governments have been continually being issued for nearly five years now to Americans across the country when they, too, have knowledgably declined to declare their earnings to qualify as “income” is simply evidence of the fact that without that endorsing declaration, those earnings do not, in fact, qualify, and that what I know and believe to be true about the tax, and explain in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America', IS, in fact, the truth.
(In regard to these refunds, many have involved very detailed exchanges between the tax agencies and the claimants-- sometimes going on for a year or more, as anyone following my postings these cases over the years is aware. See the Victories Highlights page and the Every Which Way But Loose series for dozens of examples. Be sure to click on provided links relating to each posted item on these pages to see all the material and dialogue exchanged between the claimant and the tax agency in connection to these events.)
To the government, that truth about the tax is the only thing that matters. It wants to drive that truth out of the minds of those who have learned it, and intimidate those who have acted on their knowledge into reversing themselves, by simple, crude fear; and it wants to discourage anyone else from ever learning it in the first place.
But to the rest of us, the refunds and other victories, and even the liberating truth to which they bear witness itself, are not the core issues here-- as is made clear by the fact that some of those victories involve claims of as little as a few dollars (one is only $1.00). Nobody who has learned that truth is invoking it for the money-- they are invoking it as an exercise of their right to speak freely, honestly, and in a legally-meaningful manner in dispute of allegations made about them by others which they know and believe to be untrue.
This case is a speech, due process, and core Rule of Law case, pure and simple-- not a “tax case”. Bluntly put, it is a "government behaving lawlessly and abusively in service to its boundless arrogance, ambition and contempt for the Constitution" case.
All real Americans will find their stomachs roiling at this embrace of raw corruption by the state. All real Americans should be galvanized to action, as well.
If you are, GET INVOLVED!! DONATIONS ARE SORELY NEEDED TO FINANCE A LEGAL A-TEAM THAT CAN REALLY SLAP BACK!! Any amount you can afford will help. Make them here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382.
MORE-- Send word of this corrupt assault on freedom of speech, due process and the rule of law to everyone on your lists!!
Especially, ring the phones off the hooks at the Institute for Justice ((703)682-9320), the ACLU, the Rutherford Institute ((434)978-3888), the Center For Individual Rights (202)833-8400, Judicial Watch ((888)593-8442) and every other organization that fancies itself a champion of liberty and the law.
Do the same with the media-- your local outlets, the national MSM and new media like LewRockwell.com, Vdare.com, Infowars.com and so on. You may not be aware of it, but none of these folks know anything about any of this (and some that may have heard of CtC have had their impressions tainted by folks of the sort described here, or reflexively think "Oh, it's just that "Schiff", or "Meredith" or [fill in the blank] stuff with new clothes").
You also may not understand that YOUR bearing witness to YOUR study and independent verification of what is presented in CtC, and of all that I have been posting here over the years, is FAR more influential with these folks than anything I can do to excite their interest. YOU'VE got to do this, each and every one of you, or it just won't happen.
Finally, send this newsletter to everyone you know, EVEN OTHER CtC WARRIORS. For a variety of reasons-- some doubtless benign, others perhaps not-- these newsletters are not getting to everyone on my own mailing list. YOUR forwarding the email you just got from me announcing this update will ensure that these other folks get the news and can get involved.
**
P. S. If you see posts about this subject in newsgroups, forums, etc., please do me the favor of posting my comments above (with links active), or, "Pete has posted comments about this latest attack on the truth about the tax-- along with some important links-- at www.losthorizons.com/LastShotForTheLawDefiers.htm."
P. P. S. The short films at www.losthorizons.com/WtW.htm, www.losthorizons.com/AreYouReady.htm and www.losthorizons.com/It'sTime.htm will provide a quick introduction to the liberating truth about the tax, and the 25-page document at www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf will give a more in-depth, but still easily-accessible look at this critically-important subject.
** A Few Good Words From The National Forum
"IRS Monsters Meet CtC Sunlight"
(Click on the title or image-- Windows Media Player should launch.)
Substantive Filings/Activities In The Case NOTE: My references below to government filings as "attempts to evade" might strike some as prejudicial at first glance, but it will be observed by the careful reader that the government actually doesn't even attempt to contest the substance of most of these motions (such as its having made no effort whatever to challenge or contest the very key "meaning of includes" material presented in the "May 7 Motion to Dismiss on Additional Grounds")...
Government Attempt to Evade Jan. 15 Motion to Dismiss Reply to Government's Non-Response May 5 Motion for Disclosure Exhibit Government Attempt to Evade May 5 Motion for Disclosure May 5 Motion to Dismiss on Additional Grounds Government Attempt to Evade Motion to Dismiss on Additional Grounds Government Attempt to Evade Motion for Discovery May 7 Motion to Dismiss on Additional Grounds Government Attempt to Evade Motion to Dismiss on Additional Grounds
A hearing was held on May 14 in which very brief oral arguments were permitted concerning the Jan. 15 motion.
All of the motions above were "taken under advisement" by the court following the May 14 hearing.
Over the last 45 days or so, a few significant events have occurred in this matter, prompting this update. First of all, in what attorneys familiar with federal procedures describe as a highly unusual move, the Department of Justice (sic) has produced partial records of internal communications between IRS personnel and those of IRS personnel with DoJ officials concerning the decision to initiate this assault on me personally, due to their inability to dispute the truth about tax revealed in CtC. These selected records have been given to Chief District Court Judge Gerald Rosen for in camera review. It is perhaps the DoJ's hope that this customized submission will forestall an actual order from the court for a more complete submission pursuant to a defense motion to the court to that effect, which has been pending since January, and which, like nearly all of the defense motions so far, was "taken under advisement" by the court on May 14. I have only been furnished with a summary identifying each series of exchanges, and not the actual emails and other individual communiqués, but by itself the summary is quite interesting. First, the summary immediately suggests the government's motive of pre-empting an actual order, and consequently more complete release, since it indicates that only exchanges through June of 2006 were given to the judge for review. The indictment didn't occur until November of 2008-- nearly 2 1/2 years later, so there would appear to be much that has been left out of this submission. Furthermore, this summary suggests that only exchanges of a formal nature were provided. (By the way, the unfinished sentence in the last entry in the summary linked above is as it was submitted.) More interesting still, the summary makes clear that operatives in the IRS have been repeatedly trying to come up with some pretext for charging me with something-- which efforts had been being repeatedly shot down-- since as early as 2004! The summary describes two "referrals" for criminal investigation shot down by the Detroit IRS offices, followed by the shopping-out of the effort to the apparently more pliable Cleveland IRS office. That office accepted the "referral", but then also apparently recognized the illegitimacy of the effort. As noted in the cover letter accompanying the summary, which itself purports to "summarize" the history reflected in the materials given to the judge,
The cover-letter summary goes on to say that an "administrative investigation" was then commenced-- this is the investigation which included a series of summonses to my "third-party recordkeepers" discussed in detail here. Significantly, that investigation was unable to produce anything serving the purposes of those in the IRS behind this assault. This is made clear by the nature of the indictment upon which they were finally forced to settle, which ended up merely alleging that I didn't believe what I said on documents long-since in the record. In fact, the allegations to which the "ignorance tax" schemers ultimately resorted after all of that struggle to find more plausible pretexts for this assault could have been written at any time from 2002 on, with no change whatsoever other than in the number and relevant dates of the otherwise identical counts.
All of the flailing about revealed in these summaries didn't happen in a vacuum, of course. Every bit of it went on distinct from, parallel to, and coincident with, the four failed efforts to enjoin distribution of CtC and impose penalties on me based on spurious charges of "promotion of an abusive tax shelter" (a charge which the government has broadly applied, and with great success, to those actually espousing mistaken views about the "income" tax over the years) discussed here; not to mention the calculated misinformation campaigns of the IRS against CtC discussed here; the bogus "lawsuit" against my wife and me discussed here; the series of frantic redesigns of "notices" "forms" and "letters" described here; and the ongoing, six-years-now-and-counting successes of CtC-educated Americans in reclaiming every penny withheld from them and given over to the federal and a constantly-growing number of state and local governments in connection with the "income" tax documented here, of course.
All in all, the government's efforts to evade the truth revealed in CtC have been impressive indeed (for volume, vigor and unscrupulousness, anyway). They call for matching efforts by those of us that know and care about the truth to see to it that it continues to spread, and that these corrupt government programs to dissuade others from learning the liberating truth fail.
***
Sad to say, prosecutorial evasions and crass manipulation of the jury succeeded in accomplishing an adverse outcome in my trial in the District Court. There were a variety of elements idiosyncratic to the proceedings which played critical roles in this outcome. Each will yield grounds for appeal toward either reversal or remand.
Most importantly, the content of CtC and related materials never got presented other than in the most cursory fashion throughout the affair. In large part this was a consequence of an evasive prosecution strategy of presenting no witnesses capable of testifying about the content of any tax agency document, while still being permitted to present the documents, in the expectation that the jury would make assumptions about that content and its significance.
For instance, the sole IRS witness in the prosecution's case-in-chief was a "Disclosure Officer". This fellow introduced a series of IRS notices and internal records, all of which represented institutional "positions" taken by the agency of one sort or another. However, not being the one responsible for having produced or authorized any of these documents or institutional "positionings", he couldn't be questioned about any of them.
The effect of this strategy was to invite the jury to imagine a monolithic institutional resistance to my filings [implicitly] resting on some defensible legal basis, while never providing an opportunity for cross examination which would have revealed the lack of such a basis. In short, the prosecution strove to evade its obligation to prove (or even argue) the correctness of its allegations.
Indeed, no effort was made to prove that anything in my filings was false-- in fact, the prosecution carefully avoided any witness or line of questioning which could have led to its being forced to attempt to make such proofs. No prosecution witness testified that I had been paid "wages" (or that I was paid anything at all, for that matter); no prosecution witness testified that I owed any tax; in fact, no prosecution witness testified about anything relevant to what appeared on my filings at all. Unable to prove what was on my filings to be incorrect, the prosecution simply evaded the subject completely. In short, the liberating truth revealed in CtC was avoided by these folks like vampires avoiding sunlight.
Unfortunately, its reliance on the jury taking the reflexive view that, "Our good and true government agencies wouldn't resist these filings as they did without good and legally sound cause!" was apparently well-founded. This trope was fortified with references to the civil "lawsuit" against my wife and me, the nuances of which apparently were far too complicated for the jury to take in.
Instead of recognizing the inherently void and self-serving character of the "ruling" in that affair, the prosecution's deployment of the case planted in the jurors' minds the impressions of another expression of resistance by yet another "authority figure", by virtue of which, it was argued, I should conclude that I must be wrong about the law. My very expression of the real character of that "ruling" was presented as "stubborn refusal to listen to our sainted and incorruptible judiciary" something which could not, it was implied, be done in genuine good faith.
In fact, that was the whole of the prosecution's case: "This guy just won't bow down and accept what all these people with fancy titles imply with their efforts to thwart his inconvenient filings, but instead insists that the law says otherwise! You good jurors have always taken the government's word for it, so how can you believe that he sincerely doesn't, much less that he could be right about what the law says?" This argument is richly ironic in light of the prosecution's efforts to keep the jury from learning what those folks with fancy titles and offices really DO in response to educated filings.
(The prosecution succeeded in derailing the presentation to the jury of any revealing special-case victories by the expedient of announcing during my testimony that it would stipulate that "numerous people have gotten refunds by filing returns similar to Mr. Hendrickson's". In fact, it ultimately admitted that just one agency office alone has seen more than ten thousand educated filings over the last few years. Nonetheless, this ploy apparently threw my attorney off-script, as he didn't manage to return to the special-case victory presentation before announcing to the court that he was experiencing heart palpitations and ending testimony for the day. The subject was never revisited.)
It is even more ironic in light of the great pains taken to prevent the jury from reading the actual words of the "income" tax statutes relevant to this case themselves. Instead the jury was only provided with prosecution-drafted, completely misleading "interpretations" of the meaning of "wages", "employee" and "employer" (with the "employment" term from chapter 21 simply left out entirely, perhaps because there was no way to include it without revealing the inaccuracies of the other "interpretations"...).
At the same time, my famous defense counsel proved unequal to the task. This may have been due to medical issues, or just age, but in any event resulted in a number of very important missteps, errors and oversights. I'll not detail these here and now, except to say that they went so far as to include forgetting to publish key documents to the jury before resting the defense. The effect of this poor performance was to allow the prosecution's ad hominem attack to be more effective in manipulating the jury than it should have been.
Needless to say, I'm not happy, and my family is in serious distress. But we will persevere.
You are the ones that make this possible, and I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for your prayers, your kind and heartening words, and your support throughout this ordeal so far. I hope that you will continue in every respect going forward, and especially keep up your own courage and commitment in upholding the rule of law (though I have no fears on that score).
There is an old story that I'm sure you all know, about a group of mice being preyed on by a cat. One day, one of the mice has the bright idea of hanging a bell around the cat's neck, so that the mice will all hear it coming, and thus avoid being consumed. Everyone agrees that the plan is brilliant, but then comes the question, "Who will be the one to put the bell on the cat (and surely die trying)?" Faced with that, no one acts, and the mice go on as abject victims of the hungry cat.
However, there IS a solution to that conundrum: If all the fellows of the mouse doing the belling act together in his support, the cat can be overwhelmed and the job can be done.
In this case, the mice are supposedly free men and women, and the task that needed doing was that of pulling back the curtain to reveal a corrupt lie by which everyone has already been victimized for decades, and would continue to be for decades to come. I stepped forward and pulled back that curtain, and now the liars are trying to cut off my hand so that the curtain can drop back into place and their exploitations can continue unhindered. I need my fellows to help, right now.
Donations can be made here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382.. Anything that you can afford to contribute-- even if it's just $10-- will be helpful and much appreciated.
Many of you have already contributed to my expenses in dealing with this assault on the truth and our rule of law, and I am enormously grateful to all who have done so. But just getting to where we are in this affair so far, has cost a huge amount in legal fees. Much more will be needed going forward in pursuing the appeal.
By the way, an alternative to simple donations that has another, special virtue is to purchase copies of CtC to give to friends, family and neighbors...
As it happens, the twelfth edition of CtC is now available, and so, even if just a single book is all that you can afford, this is a perfect time to give your older edition to someone needing to learn the truth about the tax and to give yourself a new copy with all the text upgrades, additional authorities and appendix supplements included to one degree or another in every new edition. If your budget allows for more, discounts begin with as few as six copies. Click here for ordering and discount information.
Above all, even if helping financially is simply beyond your abilities at this time, don't let yourselves be cowed into silence. Lies and corruption require darkness to thrive. The light of public awareness is to them as daylight is to a vampire.
However, I simply cannot command the attention of the media. The first thing anyone in the media does upon hearing from me is go to Google, and the first thing they find is a DoJ press release, or some other carefully-crafted, misleading page by an enemy of the truth which deliberately excludes all of the legal victories (and the legal shenanigans of the opposition), the hundreds and hundreds of practical victories, the facts about the disinformation campaigns and the other plain evidence of the actual truth of CtC-related events over the years, and which also excludes any of the actual content of the relevant law, of course. Typically, the matter gets no second look, nor any skeptical investigation of these calculated misrepresentations.
YOU can get more traction, though, because you're not saying, "Hey, look at my stuff!" You're saying, "Hey, look at this guy's stuff! I did, and it took awhile, but what I learned will blow your socks off, and it's the story of the century!"
So please, stand up, loud and proud. If you are in the media, or know anyone who is, please help see to it that informed, honest reporting is done about CtC and this current desperate, corrupt assault on the liberating truth. And even if you're NOT in the media officially, help me get the word into the new media, which matters at least as much. Send me your video testimonials.
"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
2/26/10 Giving The Court A Chance To Fix A Few Errors...
NOW, HAVING READ THE BRIEF THROUGH, spend a few moments reflecting on the fact that the ploys that I detail in this document are the sort grasped-at by an adversary who has lost the battle over what the law really says and means. This sort of corrupt gamesmanship (and the great deal more that I was unable to address in this particular brief due to page-limits) is that of an adversary beaten by the truth uniquely revealed in CtC.
It is also the gamesmanship of enemies of the law that still hope to carry on with the "ignorance tax" anyway, by frightening the educated into standing down and going quiet. THESE folks hope that YOU folks will NOT read things like this brief. They hope that you will NOT recognize that the legal battle is actually over, that there is no "nuance" in the law permitting them to "foil" the truth revealed in CtC, and that the only real battle now being fought is for control over your conscience, your courage and your will.
THESE LAW-DEFIERS HOPE that you will be diverted into fruitless quests for "silver bullets" or into empty grumbling, or into ANYTHING other than continuing to act and speak the truth. They don't care what you do, as long as you stop bearing witness to the fact that the answer to their decades of pernicious assault on liberty and the rule of law through the misadministration of the "income" tax is in hand, needing nothing to be fully realized but more Americans taking their stand, standing their ground and raising their voices.
DON'T STOP.
(3/30/10)
ON MARCH 19, THE DoJ filed its response to my motion (after seeking and getting a 7-day extension in which to do so based on the assertion that having forgotten how busy it is this time of year, it failed to budget enough time to stay within the mandated period). You'll find it posted below, but...
Before you read it, re-read my motion carefully.
HAVING DONE SO, prepare for reading the DoJ response by revving up your evasion/fudge/mischaracterization/lie-detector to fire on all cylinders.
For instance, be prepared to recognize the deployment of gross bs like the obvious perjury of Shauna Henline. Henline made the absurd claim that when a return arrives at the IRS, any refund claimed on it just gets sent, no questions asked. (I think the folks whose stories make up the 'Every Which Way But Loose' series and many of the 'Victories Highlights' might find that assertion a bit inaccurate... For that matter, four out of six of my own claims filed with the agency have yet to "just get sent".)
The DoJ tries to use that blatantly perjurious assertion in its response to argue that even though it made no effort in trial to prove my filings to be "material" in the sense meant in the charged offenses (just as it made no effort to prove that they were false), this should be "assumed", based on Henline's ridiculous assertion.
(On the other hand, Henline also admitted under oath that her one office alone has seen-- "conservatively speaking", as she said-- more than 10,000 CtC-educated filings during the last several years, proving, among other things, that the CtC-educated community is here to stay, and won't be frightened back into silence or lies by the frantic snarling of the junk-yard dog tax agency.)
ANOTHER EXAMPLE of gross DoJ mendacity is the falsification of the instructions given to the jury as to the definition of "employee" (and thus, that of "wages"). In its "response", the DoJ says that,
However, the actual instruction given for "employee" was:
It would appear that this DoJ falsification, in which the phrase "legal employer-employee relationship" has been left out of the "employee" instruction, is intended to obscure the issues concerning the meaning of this phrase, and the fact that it went undefined and unexplained to the jury, both highly significant issues in the consideration of my motion and the validity of the verdict.
Understand, this is NOT a matter of the dangerous phrase simply being inadvertently omitted or overlooked. Rather, the DoJ actually reworked the language of the real instruction given (which it had itself written in the first place), so as to conceal the omission. In its falsified version, the DoJ says, "...I instruct you that the term "employee" means any individual who performs these services." Note the insertion of "these", where the actual language reads, "...who performs services..."
Then of course, there is a period installed where the actual instruction language goes on to the "legal relationship" reference-- and this even while the transcript page on which the actual language being falsified unmistakably appears is carefully cited to suggest authenticity. It's very hard to see this as anything but a blatant, deliberate fraud.
AT THE SAME TIME, be prepared to recognize subtle mendacities, such as the footnote on page 2 declaring that since I referred to the Edward Rose Company as my employer (even though I technically worked for its subsidiary, Personnel Management, Inc.), the DoJ would use the former in its references. Needless to say, I never said that either entity was my "employer"-- I referred to either of them as "the company for which I worked".
However, seeing an opportunity to generate a little fog by making a reference to 'employer' without clarifying the sense in which it does, the mendacious DoJ took it. Note, however, that it doesn't put quote marks around the word. Thus, the DoJ avoids technically lying with this reference, which it would have done had it put the marks in place, and thereby overtly suggested that I had made a reference to the companies as being my "employer" in the sense defined in the law.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE is the footnote on page 4 asserting that, "the defendant altered the jurat [on pre-CtC-filed returns] to present his contention that wages were not taxable." My addition to the jurats on those older 1040s after the, "true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief" language actually says, "...except insofar as the term "income" is misused hereon." Obviously nothing there about "wages not being taxable", but as usual when trying to deal with the CtC reality, the government has to set up a "straw man" if it wants to be able to appear to be knocking something down...
As is true of so many government efforts to evade CtC, the resort to this cheap ploy actually only emphasizes the book's accuracy, of course. What my addition to the jurat said was that my earnings don't qualify as "income"-- and not only is this clear from the language of the addition itself, but I explained this on paper and in detail to the IRS in my response to its refusal to process my return for the year 2000 (which refusal led to the research which culminated in the writing of CtC). So the DoJ knows what I said, and if the agency really could refute my ACTUAL "contention", it wouldn't be afraid to describe that "contention" accurately.
That is, if the DoJ felt it could credibly argue that my earnings qualify as "taxable" or as "income", it would not hesitate to acknowledge that, "the defendant altered the jurat to present his contention that his earnings were not income;" or, "...to present his contention that his earnings were not taxable." If the DoJ felt it could credibly argue that my earnings qualify as "taxable" or as "income", an accurate acknowledgement of what I said wouldn't threaten its case in the least.
The DoJ's fear of describing my jurat addition accurately is clearly because the government CAN'T refute what that addition actually expressed. Thus, it is forced to resort to the pretense that I made some hokey generic declaration about the "taxability of wages", and thus, the agency acknowledges by default-- for the nth time-- that CtC is dead-on correct.
I SIMPLY COULDN'T ADDRESS each and every lie or ploy of the sort described above in my reply, which was confined by the rules of the court to 5 pages of text, counting footnotes and signatures, double-spaced and with specific wide margins (the posted version of my motion and reply have been formatted differently, for the sake of file-size reduction). Therefore, you've got to deal with some of this stuff on your own.
So, having read (or re-read) the motion, read the DoJ "response" carefully.
Finish with a careful read of my reply and reply supplement, followed by the additional comments below.
***
THOSE IN THE "TAX HONESTY" COMMUNITY who persist with nonsense about the use of 1040s or 4852s as amounting to inherent, adverse "admissions" (and those confronted with this nonsense) should take careful note of the fact that no effort was made by the DoJ to argue such a thing in its "response", even while it DID argue that my having not explicitly rebutted my receipt of "wages" on my pre-CtC-research filings amounted to such admissions...
Its arguments in this regard were futile, as my reply makes clear. But the point here is that the DoJ evinces a definite interest in trying to make a case that I made admissions supporting its allegations but only tries to do so by making the one argument, and not the other.
It is thus clear that even the DoJ won't go so far as to venture the absurd proposition that the use of forms specified by its own laws as those with which allegations of the conduct of taxable activities are rebutted somehow constitutes evidence that taxable activities WERE conducted, or makes the user into some kind of entity whose every economic act or gain is subject to the tax. Had that kind of twisted notion been viable, the DoJ would have simply pointed out that I used such forms in, and concerning, the years of the charged offenses, and that would be that.
The agency does not, and in fact, does the virtual opposite. It argues that because I FAILED to deploy 4852s in my earlier filings to explicitly rebut the characterization of my earnings as "wages", I should be deemed to have admitted them to be (just as is pointed out in CtC...).
Similarly, where it makes a reference to my completion of W-4s, the DoJ does so not with the assertion that my completion and submission of such forms made me into an "employee", but rather by suggesting that my doing so indicated that I "accepted the characterization" of myself as an "employee" (and thus the jury could conclude that I was an employee and my remuneration was "wages"). Unfortunately for this argument, it was the government's burden to actually try and prove that I really DID receive "wages", if it could-- not just paint a picture from which something theoretically COULD be concluded (but hey, when it's all you got...). Further, the last W-4 I submitted prior to the period involved in these charges was accompanied by documents making clear that I DID NOT "accept the characterization" of myself as an "employee" and my earnings as "wages".
But the larger point is that this riff is just another example of the principles and legal realities pointed out in CtC, and is NOT an argument that the filling out and/or submission of the forms itself made anything into a reality, or even just into an unrebuttable presumption.
PRECISELY THE SAME POINT APPLIES to the "citizenship/residency" (c/r) nonsense persistently flogged throughout the community by those seeking to distract Americans away from the liberating truth revealed in CtC and keep them from lending their strength to the one effort that will win this war against the lies about the tax-- standing up and standing firm on behalf of that truth, while spreading the word...
That ridiculous "c/r" argument holds that merely by being (or allowing or encouraging oneself to be deemed) a "United States citizen" or "resident" (sometimes viewed as "citizenship or residency" in the "federal zone"), one's earnings are all transformed into profits from the exercise of some federal function or prerogative. The underlying "reasoning" here is that "United States citizenship or residency" is a privilege granted by the United States, and subsequent economic activity while enjoying this "privilege" is therefore taxable.
Writing about this just gave me a great idea! I'll just grant my neighbors the privilege of citizenship of "Hendricksonland", and start collecting taxes from them. If any of them refuse to pay, I'll sue, and just quietly explain to the judge that the protestor is my citizen, that being so is a privilege, and that I've laid a tax on all the economic activity of anyone to whom I've extended a privilege, based on the reasoning that the "privilege" is a sort that simply hangs on them 24/7, and that therefore anything they do at any time is facilitated by that "privilege" and I can claim a piece of its outcome by right.
Or maybe I'll be subtle.
I'll send my neighbors notes indicating that unless they tell me not to, by returning the form I provide for that purpose, I will cut their lawns this summer and bill them accordingly. Then, if they don't reply, I'll presume them to have agreed, and enforce the charges accordingly (and who knows, perhaps I'll even actually cut some of their lawn). If they DO reply--even just to say "No!"-- I'll deem them to have admitted to being my citizens, or residents on my property, by virtue of their use of my reply form to decline the "service agreement" (and in either case because they never deny being my citizens or residents, for which no means for doing so will be provided or explained, in any case), and I'll take the charge from them as a "tax" of a portion of all their economic activity, based on the reasoning outlined above...
TO RETURN TO SERIOUSNESS, the proponents/injectors of this nonsense hope that their marks will forget that unapportioned capitations remain prohibited, and that as the Supreme Court clearly points out and/or upholds in many cases over a century-and-a-half of relevant jurisprudence, the government can't evade this prohibition by crafting a tax scheme that effectively amounts to an unapportioned capitation, while pretending that it isn't one, and is just an application of its excise authority on the "privilege" of earning money as a "citizen" or "resident" of the "United States (however that latter term is defined). (In fact, the court has flatly said that all Constitutional prohibitions apply even to those who really are citizens and/or residents of its territories and possessions. See http://losthorizons.com/comment/CitizenshipJuriesVoting14th.pdf for an extended discussion and case-law.)
The DoJ isn't so bold as to make this ridiculous argument, even while it finds itself compelled to try the equally lame argument that, "He didn't [explicitly] deny that his earnings were "wages" back in the '90s, your honor, so he must have been lying when he began [explicitly] saying said he didn't believe that they were starting in 2002!" As in the case of the "use of government forms" issue, if the government actually operated on the basis of the "c/r" concept, the DoJ would never have bothered with the argument it DID attempt, and would have simply said, "Hendrickson hasn't argued that he isn't a citizen or resident of the United States, your honor, and therefore, since the law imposes a tax on all income of any citizen or resident..."
THAT THE DoJ DOES NOT MAKE THIS ARGUMENT (or anything like it, such as arguments involving Social Security numbers, or whatever other distracting notions not found in CtC, WGRaM or on non-forum pages at losthorizons.com clutter up the landscape) must be accorded its proper significance. By the same token, what the DoJ DOES argue, and the conformity of that argument with what is pointed out in CtC, must also be accorded its proper significance.
To review this affair in its entirety, please begin at the top of this page and read through.
*People exploited as resources by others while under a delusion keeping them from realizing the sordid truth. See 'The Matrix'.
|
