Games - Artwear - Wisdom Wall Art - Stationery - HomeschoolingDon't Tread On Me - Income Tax Truth - Comment - Home

 

 

A DOJ Desperate To Suppress The Truth Files Seven Profoundly Corrupt Lawsuits

 

Ironically, The Department Is Forced To Illustrate A Key Lesson Of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' In The Process...

(Click here for the latest update)

 

The US Department of Justice (sic) has announced the filing of civil lawsuits against Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, and six other parties who have lawfully claimed, and received, the return (refund) of their own property which had been put into the keeping of the federal government against potential tax liabilities which did not ultimately materialize.  The suits characterize these refunds as "erroneous"-- that is, as having been refunds of taxes paid (rather than what they really were-- the relinquishment of property put on deposit against a possible tax liability which didn't subsequently arise), issued by mistake, and indicate that the government wants the property restored to its possession.

 

Not coincidentally, all of these parties are students of the information presented in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America', a book the federal government has repeatedly attempted to suppress since its initial publication in August of 2003.  The book, which unravels the complexities of the income tax (in particular), and reveals the means by which that tax has been improperly administered and applied over the decades, is now in its sixth printing-- thousands of copies are being read and shared across America (and on four other continents, as well).  Thus, it is too late to close that barn door now.

 

What The Government Doesn’t Want You To Know

  

For the benefit of those who have not yet read ‘Cracking the Code-...’ (CtC), here is a quick sketch of what the government is so desperate to suppress, even while it continues, every week, to properly issue complete refunds to readers acting on what they have learned in the book:

 

The income tax is a tax on gains from voluntary involvement in federal activities-- either as a worker/office holder, or as an investor or beneficiary-- and nothing else.  That limitation is what keeps the tax in the good graces of the Constitutional prohibition of capitations and other direct taxes, which it would otherwise qualify as if extended to any other subjects.

 

Since its debut in 1862, the creation of a legal instrument swearing to the amount, and the taxable status, of every payment of such specialized gains has been a part of the tax’s bureaucratic structure.  The most common such instruments (called ‘information returns’ in the law) are known as W-2s, 1099s and K-1s-- each of which contains, deep in its legal fine print, a clear and explicit declaration that the payment which it reports IS a gain from involvement in federal activities, and is therefore taxable.

 

Over the decades, through a combination of factors, Americans have been trained to execute one of these information returns whenever they are making almost ANY kind of payment, leaving the correction of errors to the recipient of the payment.  Quite properly, a means by which such corrections can be accomplished is thoroughly provided for within the law.

 

Unfortunately, a general understanding of the limitations of the income tax, and the mechanisms by which it is implemented, has faded.  This is not really too surprising.  Although its basic principles are simple and straightforward, the body of the tax law itself is a mind-numbing several millions of words long.  More, the structure of the law contains a number of elements which are capable of being misunderstood as extending the tax beyond its actual limits, when examined superficially.  ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ thoroughly, comprehensively and unmistakably corrects such misunderstandings, and reveals the liberating knowledge of what the law actually says, and how it really works.

 

However, daunting complexity and widespread ignorance of the law have not been the sole tools for maintaining the tax scheme-- fear of corrupt official behavior, and the carefully-nurtured perception that a high price will be paid by anyone who asserts his or her rights in this area have also been heavily relied upon.  Thus, these DOJ/IRS lawsuits: the former having been undone, the latter are now being called upon.

 

A Few Observations About These ‘Lawsuits’

 

The filed lawsuits suffer from several key technical flaws, discussion of which will be reserved for another occasion.  They are, in fact, remarkably shoddy pieces of legal work.

 

Among other errors, these suits misrepresent aspects of the law (although, in fairness to the reputation of the lawyers who assembled them, this is probably deliberate, for purposes of intimidating the defendants and misleading the press).  For instance, the government makes a show of challenging explanatory language regarding "request" and "fear of IRS retaliation" on forms filed to correct erroneous information returns, when only the material facts on such forms (i.e., the numbers) are actually relevant to the statutes under which the suits are purportedly authorized.  More importantly, the suits uniformly mis-represent the information presented in CtC (and by implication, the testimony of the defendants), in keeping with a well-established pattern which has appeared in previous IRS efforts to thwart or discourage Americans acting on the knowledge gained from reading the book.

 

For example, uniform language in each suit refers to "[Hendrickson's] arguments that wages are not income".  I think there is no one in the world who makes more clear than I do in dozens of writings on the subject in general, and in CtC in particular, that "wages" ARE, in fact, "income'...  Similarly, there is language in the suits to the effect that I have said that only government employees are subject to the tax: complete nonsense both as to the substance of the assertion, and that I have ever made it.  Such assertions are ascribed to me and to CtC by the government because it can pooh-pooh them as not true.  The government has no response to what I DO say, and so it does not address the actual information I provide.

 

Another uniform misrepresentation in these suits is a carefully-presented suggestion that the government's return of the property belonging to the targets of these corrupt lawsuits occurred in a fog in which only the target's filed claim existed, thus (as the government would have it) misleading the Treasury Department to cut a check.  This is absurd.

 

The fact is, these suits are FOUNDED on nothing but the testimony of those who created information returns (W-2s) about those targets, which are supposed to be sent to the government at the same time that they are sent to those about whom they are created.  It's possible that these W-2 creators were simply lax about following the law (they appear to be in other respects-- see The Criminal Rites Of Spring), but we know they at least sent them out to the filers (since it is these W-2s that the filers are accused of disagreeing with).  We also know that the whole point of sending them to the filers is to give notice to those men and women that they have been testified about-- by means of the same form having been sent to the government-- so that they can look after their interests by way of response.  Further, we have heard nothing about any of these companies being charged with a failure to submit the forms at the time and in the manner provided by law.  (For that matter, we have heard nothing about THEM being accused of making "false and fraudulent" expressions for disagreeing with the FILER'S testimony...)

 

In fact, it is a virtual certainty that the amounts withheld, and re-claimed, by the good and brave Americans who are now targeted for abuse simply for testifying in a fashion contrary to the government's preferences, were verified by comparison with the very information returns the government is relying upon in trying to make its case in these suits (this is, in fact a certainty in my own case, as is verified by sworn testimony introduced by the government in the case).  Thus, the proposition that the poor, eager-to-please Treasury Department just sent out these checks due to taking the filer's word for things, while having no other information to work with, is not just absurd-- it is a bald-faced lie.

 

Again, these suits all rely entirely on the assertions of the creators of those information returns to propose that the filer's claims are "false and fraudulent", and to suggest that the government has a claim to the filer's property-- despite the fact that the assertions of the information return creators are nothing more than that-- mere assertions-- having no more legal weight than the contrary assertions of the targets of these lawsuits, and actually less, once a relevant 1040 has been executed.  This is, in fact, the heart of the matter-- the government is incapable of simply asserting that each of these targeted Americans made money, and that a tax is therefore due, because the one doesn't actually follow from the other, as every reader of CtC understands.

 

This Is Not Just About Taxation-- It's About The Right To Speak, And To Due Process, As Well

 

What these suits don't have in common is the extraordinary inclusion in the suit directed at my wife and me of a request of the court to order us to testify, on our sworn tax returns, as directed by the government!  I guess the recent government authority sought to the effect that one MUST answer an official question is not good enough-- now the government wants to instruct Americans as to WHAT THEY MUST SAY in their answers, as well!

 

The fact is, without a change in the testimony on our returns, the government actually can assert no claim to our property.  The government has no claim on that property unless and until our receipt of a requisite amount of "income" is legally established (causing a possible resulting tax liability).  Since that requisite amount was NOT, in fact, received, the government's only means of establishing a claim is to coerce us to execute a sworn statement to the effect that it was, and it is asking the court to do that for them, and thus implicitly admitting to this simple legal reality.

 

(This admission is interestingly emphasized by the fact that we actually only received $3172.30 in cash in regard to 2002 and 2003-- the remainder of the property withheld and then returned in connection with those years was officially credited against what the government alleged to have been outstanding liabilities for earlier years (years for which the IRS has illegally refused to process relevant returns properly and timely filed).  If the government actually had the authority to disregard an American's filed return, as the DOJ's suit (and decades of ridiculous propaganda from the IRS) has suggested, the government's accountants would simply reassign the credits and debits, sue for the $3172.30 plus interest, and perhaps come after us for what would be alleged to be once again outstanding from the earlier years.)

 

Of course, even though it is only spelled out in the language of the suit directed at my wife and me, all of these lawsuits actually have this same pernicious speech rights and due process violation at their hearts.  All of them seek to coerce cooperative testimony from their targets (or restrain uncooperative testimony, if you prefer) by punishing testimony which is not to the government's liking.  In the end, none of the government's claims to the property involved can stand unless the targets can be frightened or coerced into changing their existing testimony, as discussed above.

 

Indeed, that a prayer to the court to coerce a changed 1040 is found only in the suit directed at my wife and me may explain why we are the only parties named in this elaborate media event to have actually been sued, so far (as of Tuesday morning, April 18th).  Although threatening paperwork naming six other parties has been prominently posted on the DOJ website linked at the beginning of these comments, none of these other good and brave Americans has actually been served papers.

 

Can you say, "Last minute media-event sham, intended to frighten fence-sitters into irrevocably committing themselves to damaging testimony by filing per the government's preferred misunderstanding of the law"?  And how about, "Grossly cynical and corrupt camouflage for another shot at suppressing CtC"?  (The former may not be borne out by future events, but I feel pretty confident about the latter, in any case.)

 

*****

 

As noted above, this effort is all about the intimidation and discouragement of the increasingly large number of Americans becoming educated as to the truth about the "income" tax.  In particular, it is intended to suggest to those folks that, somehow, they actually do not have the right to introduce their own testimony into the record, and controvert the testimony introduced by information return preparers (which, if left uncontroverted, just happens to entitle the tax agencies to keep the filer's money...  Go figure!).  Thus, a few random thoughts on that subject:

"...a statute which imposes a tax upon an assumption of fact which the [presumed] taxpayer is forbidden to controvert is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment."  United States Supreme Court, Heiner v. Donnan 285 U.S. 312 (1932)

 

"...irrebuttable presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." United States Supreme Court, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973)

"A fundamental requirement of due process is "the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 . It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."  United States Supreme Court, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965)

The exchange of evidence by way of returns (information returns and 1040s, etc..) IS the "meaningful time and manner" involved in the "income" tax, so much so that a concrete penalty-- a $500 fine-- can be imposed on someone about whom an information return is created by someone else, should that person fail to file their own evidence in response.  Further, the government proceeds to impose all manner of onerous, burdensome, and often expensive legal infirmities and harassments upon those who do not introduce evidence by means of a return-- the object of which is the severance of the target's rights to his or her own property.  Consequently, it is worth remembering that,

"The right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society." United States Supreme Court, Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951);

and that,

"If [a provision of the Constitution] will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system."

United States Supreme Court, Escobedo v. Illinois 378 U.S. 478 (1964)

 

Another goal of this campaign is, of course, generating a reflex reaction in the minds of those who still accept the presentations of the IRS at face value (due to either innocent or stubborn ignorance, or a corrupt congruence of interest).  It is, in other words, a cynical ploy calculated to erect a mental "barrier to entry" against those who do not yet know the truth, which is being furnished by, and to, those with a financial interest in keeping such people in ignorance.  I hope those reading these words who have not yet made a study of the "income tax" subject keep this clearly and honorably in mind while moving forward.

 

***

 

This DOJ/IRS effort is a sorry piece of work in every regard, and one that should raise the hackles of every American.  I will continue to update you all on this affair as is appropriate.

 

Update:

 

I'm sorry to say that, as of May 9th, several of the good Americans selected for abuse in service to this IRS "public relations" campaign-- Jim Spitzer, Sharon Artman, Mike Dowling, Larry and Debra Golson and Joy Ferguson-- were finally served with the threatened "lawsuits".  (By "public relations campaign" I mean: Campaign to refresh the fear by which Americans have been discouraged from reading the law for themselves for a few generations now...)  As I observed when this desperate band-aid campaign began, I don't think the beneficiaries of widespread ignorance of the law who are behind this could have made poorer choices of victims of their assaults.

 

Every one of the folks targeted by these "lawsuits" is a good, brave, well-educated American hero, who has already stood up for the rule of law (and, happily, but not coincidentally, has properly secured his or her legal standing-- vis-à-vis the instant contest-- at the same time).  These folks also know what's at stake in this affair-- and by that don't mean, "What's at stake for me, personally?"  They know that what is at stake here is whether they, their children, and their fellow Americans live in a country where the law is actually the will of the people-- in practical and meaningful effect, rather just pro forma.  The plaintiff in these "lawsuits" is trying to ensure that Americans remain-- de facto-- mere "human resources": Subjects in a country ruled by self-serving "interpreters" of the law, to whom the words, "No", "Prohibited", and "Reserved" in the Constitution are not commands to be faithfully obeyed, but rather "challenges", to be slyly and creatively evaded.  ("Human resources" is really far too euphemistic a descriptor-- "livestock" is more like it; or, as the Wachowski brothers put it: "coppertops".)

 

These folks will stand up again, and will prevail.  At its core, each and every one of these "suits" has the same fatal flaw-- a complete lack of any evidence establishing that the United States has a claim to enforce against these Americans.  In fact, the evidence in the record establishes, in the manner proved for by law, that none of them received sufficient "income" for a relevant tax debt (and consequent government claim) to arise.  While I do not know the individual circumstances about which each of these folks testified in the filings related to each "lawsuit", of course, I don't doubt that each and every one of them were honest and accurate in every material matter.

 

I hope everyone will join me in wishing these good folks swift victories in their battles.

 

Update Update:

 

Sadly, several of the folks assaulted in this corrupt DOJ/IRS campaign-to-dissuade have allowed themselves to be intimidated or harassed into repudiating their own original testimony in exchange for the dropping of these "lawsuits".  It should escape the attention of no one that it was only by means of that repudiation that these actions ended-- that is, the plaintiff DOJ/IRS did not in any respect prove that the original filings of these victims were contrary to the law.  Instead, these victims were persuaded to "voluntarily" re-characterize their receipts for the years involved as having been from taxable activities (after having originally declared them not to have been)-- thus creating a governmental claim to a tax due and owing.

 

Finally,

I'd like to point out, especially to the attention of those who harbor a deep-seated cynicism about the integrity of American courts, that no one should be particularly interested in the outcome of this contest from a legal perspective.  I am not quite so cynical, and thus fully expect and intend to ultimately win this contest-- no other result is remotely compatible with any principle of law, and the courts would have to reverse hundreds of years of solidly-established doctrine to side with the government in this case.  However, even if that should happen (and I'll grant that there IS a lot of gravy-train at stake here), we must remember that, "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate", as Thomas Jefferson said so well.  No real American is going to speak, like a dog, at the direction of some "public servant"; nor remain silent, like a slave or a child, while others speak about him, regardless of the consequences.

 

*****

 

The Hendricksons' Answer Has Been Filed!

 

Choose from a .pdf version, .doc version, or .html version, and Enjoy!

(If any of these will not open from the site, right-click and choose 'save target as' to save a copy to your local machine)

 

The DOJ filed a 'Brief In Opposition' to our answer, on May 23rd

 

Here is our reply, filed June 5th:

Reply.doc or Reply.pdf

(The exhibit materials referred to in our reply consist of our tax return instruments for 2002 and 2003, and these)

 

Apparently having decided that even the sound of putting a foot in one's own mouth is better than a protracted silence when one is pretending to be in command of the situation (and so much so as to be worth risking a display of disrespect to the court, which has not yet ruled on our already-pending motions to dismiss), the DOJ has filed an untimely "Motion for Summary Judgment".  I'm sure part of its cost/benefit calculation was based upon the presumption that most of those for whom the agency practices its pretenses will never actually read these filings, but I hope that you will prove this wrong.  If you haven't already, read our initial response to the government's "complaint", and our reply to its "Brief in Opposition" to that response-- and then read this "Motion for Summary Judgment".  It is very instructive, because in this sort of filing, the filer must present what are purported to be all the facts needed to support its position.  That is, the DOJ must present evidence of whatever facts it imagines the law requires to be established in order for it to prevail under its preferred theory of the contest (which deliberately disregards the core issue of its inability to be bringing suit in the first place).

 

In light of that requirement (and considered solely in the context of the DOJ "theory" of the contest), the significance of the fact that the sole effort made by the DOJ toward this end is another (futile) attempt to present the "Declaration of Kim Halbrook" as "establishing" that my earnings constituted "wages" (and thus "income") should escape no one.   (The utter insufficiency of Halbrook's "declaration" to do so is pointed out in detail in our reply to the DOJ "Brief In Opposition".  The additional "declarations" of two IRS employees presented as exhibits with the DOJ "motion" are entirely dependent upon and subordinate to "Halbrook's", a fact admitted within each, and also pointed out, in regard to Henline's, in our aforementioned reply.)  Nothing else is deemed to be relevant.

 

I realize that some will briefly object to the assertion that the government's failure to present something else means that there is nothing else that could be presented.  Certainly the one does not automatically follow from the other in a purely mechanistic fashion.  However, no one with even a passing familiarity with this affair will doubt that anything and everything that could be deployed in support of the government's case will be deployed.  While the truth about the law is not dependent in the least upon the outcome of this contest, there is no question that a victory here for the good guys means the end of the gravy-train scheme.

 

Further, the alternatives that might be imagined by many of those who imagine such things-- such as citizenship status, the assignment of a Social Security number, the execution of a W-4,  the use of banks, or of Federal Reserve Notes, or zip-codes, or whatever is the latest notion seized upon as an excuse for edging away from the real contest-- are all of a documentary nature.  Consequently, if any such could serve to establish my receipts as being taxable, they would certainly be preferred to the hollow "evidence" of Kim Halbrook's (at best) ambiguous, and completely unschooled, opinions about the legal character of those receipts.

 

Those who have simply never thrown off the "everything-that-comes-in-is-income" brain-washing are encouraged to take note that the government is in no way, shape or form content to simply assert that I or my wife made money and therefore owe a tax.  Instead, it takes great and unfailing care to assert nothing but that I was paid "wages" and therefore owe a tax (or, more specifically, to assert that Kim Halbrook says that I was paid "wages", and that I therefore owe a tax); and that Una Dworkin, a woman with whom my wife had business dealings during the years in question, said on 1099s that Doreen was paid "taxable compensation" and therefore a tax is due.  If the "get paid for working, owe a tax" notion were true, the simple entering into evidence of a few cashed checks would be the end of this contest.  It's not true, and those of you letting yourselves be fooled by the idea need to face that fact.

 

(You also need to face the ridiculousness of the underlying proposition that the framers of the Constitution, who had just fought a bloody revolution over, in large part, a total tax burden never exceeding 3%, authorized an unlimited tax on up to 100% of anyone's earnings at the whim of a government described by Washington as "A dangerous servant and a fearful master"-- or, you really haven't been paying attention at all and imagine that the 16th Amendment had anything to do with the establishment of the "income tax", the similarly absurd notion that this ruinous and despotic power was given to Washington in 1913 by the ascendant populist movement, which had come to dominate the political scene due to a universal perception that the national government was utterly in the thrall of the "Robber-Baron" class.)

 

Those whose imaginations run to the conspiracy/universal-corruption option, and have concluded that the "income" tax is applied as though Congress has the power to tax all revenue, in arrant defiance of the Constitution and the law as written, need to reflect on the point made above as well.  The massive-conspiracy thing is just not true, and clinging to it is nothing more than an excuse for inaction by way of the "You can't fight City Hall" whine.  Intellectual accomplishment can be demanded of no one, but intellectual honesty can be insisted upon in everyone, and is.

 

Our Reply To The Motion For Summary Judgment

 

February 9, 2007: After months and months of silence, the magistrate supervising the IRS public relations (read: public intimidation) "lawsuit" against my wife and me has suddenly filed two non-dispositive, but 100% adverse, "Report and Recommendations" to the judge in the case regarding the motions to dismiss and for other relief with which Doreen and I initially responded to this "suit", and the untimely "motion for summary judgment" belched up by the plaintiff last July.  It is an interesting coincidence that these filings have occurred at the very same time that most Americans are seeing W-2s and 1099s show up in their mailboxes, and have before them the once-a-year opportunity to secure themselves against any improper application of the "income" tax which is afforded to each person about whom such "information returns" are created.

 

Our response to the first of these "Report and Recommendations" can be seen here.

 

Our response to the second can be seen here.

 

March 2, 2007:  I'm sorry to say that, although I had harbored some hope that the district court judge would display more integrity, my initial expectations for the progress of this "lawsuit" are being borne out.  Judge Nancy Edmunds, not even 24 (business) hours after our response to the second "Report and Recommendation" had been filed (while declaring nonetheless that she has "reviewed the record and the pleadings", including our not-yet-dry response), proceeded to issue her rulings-- denying our motions and granting the plaintiff's.  (I guess this must be the only case on her docket; that Judge Edmonds is an "Evelyn Wood" graduate; and that taking several historical steps into bizarro legal-land-- such as declaring that we can be made to testify on a sworn statement as dictated by others, or suffer the legal infirmity of non-filing; or that our property can be awarded to a plaintiff without a trial-- required only the briefest possible period of agonizing deliberation...)

 

Obviously, I am tempted toward sarcasm here.  But really, cynicism is the more appropriate response: As the headline says, "'Tis the Season...", and I guess Judge Edmonds feels reversal from above some time in the future is a price worth paying to get free today of what has to have been intense pressure from somewhere.  The same can be said of those playing "plaintiff" in this little charade.  This has always been about buying time-- that is, discouraging yet another batch of corrective and protective filings against the consequences of which the "plaintiff" has no real legal remedy, when all is said and done.  Onward and upward-- this is only the beginning of this contest.

 

Post-District Court Decision Motions

 

Just for the sake of thoroughness (rather than in the expectation of anything coming out of it at this level) I have filed two motions in response to the not-startling, but definitely disappointing action of the district court judge in the first stage of this IRS PR-campaign "lawsuit" against my wife and me.

 

One is a "Motion For Relief Of Judgment", which makes use of a provision in the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure for seeking post-judgment remedy of a defective ruling, and is not my own work, but that of an attorney who has been following this case.  This motion doesn't deal with the central issues of the case, but makes the collateral point that in this hokey "lawsuit", even without considering the fact that the government is attempting to get a court to do what could not be legally done by the Treasury Department (that is, determine a tax liability in defiance of our returns), jurisdiction for making any and all determinations of liability other than by self-assessment has been exclusively granted to the department, and withheld from the district courts.  Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction for yet another reason, and should dismiss the case.

 

The other is a "Motion For Reconsideration".  This motion is unlikely to be given any more "consideration" than our other filings have been by this court (which, by all indications other than rote declarations to the contrary, have not even been read...).  However, drafting it was good exercise for the next stage in this affair.

 

I also believe that the contents of this motion will be helpful to others in maintaining focus in the face of the bad guy's efforts to sow confusion, and to operate as a moving target (which is what they have to do now that they are reduced to nothing more than scrambling to shore up an exposed and rapidly crumbling lie).

 

Thus, I've posted the contents of that motion below.  It's a bit of a read, but I hope everyone will make it through, because I think it will be found worth the effort.

 

The fact is, as obnoxious as it has been to deal with (and apparently will continue to be, for a while yet), this "lawsuit" serves as a wonderful demonstration of the truth about the "income" tax which is revealed in CtC.  This is because even in the narrow and focused venue of this case, where every government presentation is necessarily as deliberate, considered and definitive as it can be, the government simply cannot and will not dispute that truth.

 

For instance, if ever there was a time to just say plain out that "Hendrickson says his earnings are not "wages", but that is wrong because all earnings are "wages"", this would be the time.  And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings (to characterize their deliberately confusing complexity in the most charitable way possible)-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T declare that this is so.

 

If ever there was a time to just say plain out that "Hendrickson says not everyone working for someone else is an "employee" within the meaning of that term in chapter 24 of the IRC, but that is wrong-- everyone working for someone else is an "employee" within the meaning of that term in chapter 24 of the IRC", this would be the time.  And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T make that plain and frank declaration.

 

If ever there was a time to say, "Hendrickson's wrong about the significance, effect, and utility of a tax return (and we have exercised our authority to change or override returns, and have determined that the Hendricksons have existing liabilities)", this would be the time.  And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T make that plain and frank declaration.

 

Instead, the government's ENTIRE "argument" is: "So-and-so (whoever typed up a couple of W-2s) says Hendrickson was an "employee", and that his earnings were "wages"".  That's it.

 

Instead, the government is begging the court to order us to change our returns, and to command us not to file inconvenient returns in the future.  That's it.

 

In short, as has been consistently true in every effort the government has made to discourage people from learning the liberating truth since CtC first appeared, everything the government DOES say, and everything it carefully does not, simply acknowledges that truth, and emphasizes the fact that the only answer the government and other beneficiaries of the "income" tax scheme have to CtC is bluster, belligerence and BS.  As we enter the final month of this year's "tax season", this "lawsuit" helps make clearer than ever the simple choice everyone faces: whether to affirm and stand with the truth, or to nourish the illusions by bowing before them for yet another year.

 

Motion For Reconsideration

 

Motion For Relief From Judgment

This last motion makes use of a provision in the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure for seeking post-judgment remedy of a defective ruling, and is mostly not my own work, but that of an attorney who has been following this case and who generously put this together and sent it to me for a bit of tweaking and eventual submission.  This motion doesn't deal with the central issues of the case, but makes the collateral point that in this hokey "lawsuit", even without considering the fact that the government is attempting to get a court to do what could not be legally done by the Treasury Department (that is, determine a tax liability in defiance of our returns), jurisdiction for making any and all determinations of liability other than by self-assessment has been exclusively granted to the department, and withheld from the district courts.  Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction for yet another reason, and should dismiss the case.

 

The District Court Has Done It Again...

What does it mean when the government and a judge resort to an unprecedented, unenforceable, blatantly illegal "remedy"?  It means they are dead in the water, and know it, but will still shamelessly persist in attempting to intimidate the timid and confuse the confused for as long as it appears to be working...

 

As expected (and predicted on this page long ago), district court judge Nancy Edmunds has refused to abandon her February 26 accommodation of the IRS in its PR "lawsuit" against my wife and me, and re-affirmed the same on May 2.  Again, though disappointing, this came as no surprise.  Indeed, our notice of appeal was filed weeks ago.

 

As usual, we are all reminded in her rulings (here and here) about how wrong anyone would be to contend that "wages are not income" (no argument here, of course).  No mention is made whatsoever of what is actually pointed out in CtC (such as that not all earnings are "wages"...).

 

As has been the case previously, being unable to dispute what really IS said, the court says that what is said is what it really is not, in an attempt to transform it into something the court CAN dispute.  In so doing, the court is once again implicitly admitting that it cannot dispute what is actually said, just as its Constitutionally impermissible (and thus pointless) attempt to coerce changed testimony on our tax returns implicitly admits that without our sworn declaration that our earnings were, in fact "income", they are, in fact, not, and the government can lay no lawful claim to a tax thereon.

 

One can't help but picture a child with its hands over its ears, its eyes tightly shut, and its mouth making loud noises in order to drown out unwanted words...

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


On February 26, 2007 and again on May 2, in Michigan’s Eastern District Court, a team of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorneys and Federal District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ordered Peter and Doreen Hendrickson to testify against themselves.

 

Judge Edmunds (a judge described by The Ann Arbor News and The Grand Rapids Press as guilty of “perverting justice” for the benefit of interests a whole lot less personally significant to her than the existing federal tax apparatus in another recent case) granted the DOJ summary judgment in a lawsuit attempting to force the Hendricksons to change sworn testimony on their tax returns in order to give the federal government a pretext for claiming the couple owed income taxes in 2002 and 2003.


Needless to say, the "order" is purely for the consumption of a gullible public and press.  Judge Edmunds lacks the authority to issue such an order-- indeed, forcing someone to change sworn testimony is not only outside the authority of any court (or anyone else) but is a violation of several different criminal statutes.

 

The DOJ and IRS have made careful and deliberate use of the "ruling", posting press releases claiming that "an injunction has been issued", without mentioning that "the injunction" purports to dictate the content of the Hendricksons' sworn testimony, and thus is inherently void.

 

The agencies also fail to mention that the reason this "order" was sought is that without a change in the Hendricksons' returns, there is no legal pretext by which the government can claim that any tax is due from the couple for the years involved.

 

Judge Edmunds issued her ruling without the formality of a trial, of course.

 

Official Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment show that, in fact, the Hendricksons owe no taxes for the years in question. Nowhere in the complaint does the DOJ present evidence that the Hendricksons owe anything or that their testimony is false. 

The Hendricksons have taken the matter to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.


The DOJ has tried and failed in three previous lawsuits to suppress Peter Hendrickson’s book, 'Cracking the Code- the Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America'. The DOJ’s efforts to silence Mr. Hendrickson appear to result from its fear of what he reveals in that book.

 

'Cracking the Code-...' shows that the application of the income tax is far more limited than most Americans believe. It demonstrates how key terms in the code such as “wages,” “employer,” “employee,” “trade or business” and “self-employment” are explicitly defined in the law in order to limit the income tax to certain federally privileged activities. Earnings unconnected with such privileged activities are not subject to the tax. Unaware of these special definitions, most Americans give the words their common meaning and mistakenly pay taxes they do not owe.


Mr. Hendrickson points out that, "The limited nature of the tax is not a matter of my opinion. In addition to the clear words of the law, dozens of United States Supreme Court rulings agree with my research and analysis, while no Supreme Court rulings support any alternative view, including the broad misunderstanding of the law the IRS likes to encourage."


The IRS appears, at best, "conflicted". Even while presenting a disparaging (but carefully inaccurate) summary of 'Cracking the Code-...' on its web site, the IRS continues to send full refunds-- Social Security and Medicare ‘contributions’ included-- to nearly everyone who files accurate returns based on what they learn by reading the book. Hendrickson’s web site, www.losthorizons.com, shows copies of refund checks, credits and corrected account statements amounting to over $2.8 million (as of 2/01/08) received by his readers since the book was first published in 2003. This amount, which the IRS says is a mere fraction of what it has returned to readers of Hendrickson’s book so far, continues to grow every week.

 

Indeed, each and every month since the filing of these "lawsuits" nearly two years ago, an average of more than $83,000.00 worth of subsequent victories have been shared with the world by upstanding CtC-educated Americans, an even higher figure than had been the case for the several years before this latest effort to suppress CtC began.  The only differences between pre- and post-"lawsuit ploy" is that now many more state governments (30, so far) have joined the feds in acknowledging the truth about the law revealed in CtC than had done so before.

 

Similarly, six other "lawsuits" were announced at the same time as the one against the Hendricksons-- each targeting CtC-educated filers carefully selected for their locations around the country so as to provide a pretext for a nation-wide press release on the matter.  Two of the others targeted by this publicity campaign have stood their ground and are in the appellate courts dealing with district court rulings similar to that issued by Judge Edmunds.

 

The other four targets of these "lawsuits", however, surrendered to the government harassment and declared that they had perjured themselves on their original filings.  Nonetheless, although the DOJ and IRS touts these cases as "victories", the reality is that the government gratefully accepted new filings from these folks and then quickly slunk away without a backward glance.  There have been no charges or other proceedings-- in fact, the "righteous and victorious" feds formally agreed to take a hike in exchange for the new filings.

 

Not one such "lawsuit" has since been filed against any other of the hundreds of CtC-educated filers whose upstanding victories on behalf of the rule of law are posted on this site each and every week, or the thousands more who have enjoyed such victories without having been so generous of spirit as to share them.

 

The simple fact is, while the DOJ and Judge Edmunds work to suppress Hendrickson’s book, and the IRS floods the media with disinformation and fear, the hard evidence-- the words of the law, dozens of Supreme Court rulings, the ongoing stream of complete refunds and everything else-- remains squarely on the side of the liberating revelations in 'Cracking the Code- the Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America'.

 

CONTACT: Pete Hendrickson

E-mail: phendrickson 'at' losthorizons.com

 

For a quick introduction to the truth about the tax, see www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf

 

Are We Having Fun Yet?!

 

On July 23, 2007, in an effective admission of its inability to defend its public-relations "lawsuit" against Pete and Doreen Hendrickson in the appellate arena, the DOJ filed a request for more time to respond to the brief posted at www.losthorizons.com/PostAppellateBrief.pdf.

 

 In its request, the DOJ amusingly declares that the IRS "has determined that the issues in this case have significant administrative importance to the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and, as a result, the case has been designated within the Department of Justice, Tax Division, as a high priority case" which will "require greater than average time and attention" and "an extra level of review within the Tax Division."

 

How about that!  The DOJ has just proven that it IS capable of moving its lips without lying!

 

There's no question that "the issues in this case have significant administrative importance to the enforcement of the internal revenue laws."  Indeed, they could have said "paramount importance" and struck closer to the mark.

 

Further, who could doubt that fabricating arguments to support a position as bogus as that of the government in this case DOES take more than the usual amount of time and attention...

 

THE Department of Justice (sic) FINALLY filed its Appellee's Brief on August 13.  It is an astonishing piece of work: sprinkled with easily-demonstrated misrepresentations of material in the record; dozens of entirely inapposite case citations (and none actually relevant); carefully incomplete excerpts of statutes; and a steady shifting of argument from one effort to dodge its burdens to another (since it can't carry any of those burdens...).

 

Most notable, however, is the fact that the substance-free, straw-grasping, mendacious character of this brief, which is thoroughly laid out in the reply posted below, is a complete surrender to the accuracy of CtC on the law in every respect (and a surrender in this case on the merits, as well).

 

Read the reply through.  If you didn't already understand that all you need to do is read the book, rise to act, and spread the word, you will now.

 

9/14/07

OUR REPLY TO THE DOJ'S DESPERATE EFFORT TO EVADE REALITY HAS BEEN FILED

Enjoy.

 

(Two Memorandums of Law accompanying this reply brief are linked from within the file above.)

 

9/28/07

These Scofflaws Are More On The Ball Than One Might Expect...

 

Recognizing a fatal danger to both their bogus "lawsuit", and the overall "income" tax scheme, the DOJ/IRS are attempting to have the two memorandums of law filed with our Appellate Reply Brief in the Sixth Circuit struck from consideration by the court.  Despite the government having plainly attempted to suggest that all economic activity is subject to the "income" tax, having heavily alluded to and relied upon the proposition that "includes" is a term which (incomprehensibly) expands the meaning of defined terms beyond their given definitions (?!), and having explicitly provided, and relied upon, carefully incomplete presentations of certain statutes in its "appellee's brief"-- each of which are the explicit issues of law discussed in detail in the first of these memoranda, the DOJ argues that the memorandum isn't relevant to our reply to its brief or the issues before the court!

 

The same argument is made concerning the second memorandum, which, in fact, specifically details the law and dozens of relevant holdings by the courts concerning procedural errors and abuses by the District Court raised in both of our appellate briefs.

 

In addition to these ridiculous contentions, the DOJ argues that these memoranda are just too lengthy!  We feel for them, burning the midnight oil struggling through these few pages, but mitigate our sympathy by remembering that throughout the course of its lawless contrivances in the District Court proceedings, this same DOJ filed literally hundreds of pages of documents, most of the content of which can only be described as irrelevant fog and deliberate mendacities...

 

Considering that the DOJ "has determined that the issues in this case have significant administrative importance to the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and, as a result, the case has been designated within the Department of Justice, Tax Division, as a high priority case" which will "require greater than average time and attention" and "an extra level of review within the Tax Division." one would think that it would welcome-- nay, insist upon!-- a full and honest consideration by the court of these issues, wouldn't one?  Well, apparently, one would be wrong-- the DOJ and IRS absolutely DO NOT want these issues considered by the court.  Go figure.

 

***

 

Actually, no "figuring" is needed: This contest is THE contest regarding the "income" tax, and the DOJ and IRS know it.  I hope you know it, too, and are sharing that knowledge with others-- both those already awakened to the subject but distracted by the cacophony within the "tax honesty" community, and those in the press and legal community, as discussed below.

 

P. S. This contest is not just an "income" tax contest, by the way.  Even without regard to the underlying truth about the "income" tax, among other ramifications of the assault on due process and the rule of law being undertaken here in order to evade that truth is the fact that if the courts rule that the government can tell you what to put on a tax return, they're ruling that the government can tell you what to put on ANY sworn statement.  Think about it.

 

As has been noted before, amicus briefs by legal professionals-- both as to this new matter, and as to the larger case-- would be very welcome, and of significant benefit, RIGHT NOW!  Courts behave at their best when they know they are being observed, and that many in the larger community recognize the significance of what is being argued before them.

*****

Download the press release here...

Please help spread these around, and don't stop.

Please don't stop rattling the media until you see this addressed in your hometown paper, TV news, etc. 

 

Vigorously presenting it to organizations like LewRockwell.com, Vdare.com, Sobran.com The ACLU, The Institute for Justice, The Center For Individual Rights, Judicial Watch The Rutherford Institute and others of the same sort (including individual columnists and litigators) with a personal request that they get involved in addressing this outrageous assault on the Constitution and the basic principles of law would be especially helpful.

 

If you are an attorney, please consider filing an amicus brief!!

 

P. S.  Although I hate to admit it, dealing with these legal contests by myself is proving to be so demanding on my time and attention that my ability to do other things-- such as research and analysis outside the scope of these contests, this newsletter, managing the 48 state CtC Warrior forums, FAQ updates, my enormous correspondence load, etc., etc.-- is seriously impacted.  More, I am unable to move forward on offensive legal actions against the bad guys in order to enforce the law, including the return-processing class-action, while I am bogged down taking care of these other matters.  As I observed last year when this all first arose, this is one of the main purposes of these assaults.  I'm sorry to say that this aspect of the effort has been successful.

 

Consequently, I feel obliged to ask that those of you who value these other efforts please consider a contribution or two (or more, as you are able) to the Legal Offense Fund, the immediate application of which is going to become moving some of these current matters onto the plates of (closely supervised) appellate specialists.  The key record is established now, and at this point it's just a matter of making it stick hard-- something those with experience in the process (unlike myself) will be better equipped to do than I am, and by virtue of whose efforts I will be freed up to pursue the other matters needing my attention.

 

Furthermore, the sort of specialists I'm referring to specialize not only in the more-or-less mundane aspects of preparing and filing documents, but also in making the larger legal and general community aware of what's going on.  In other words, getting the contests into the court of public opinion.  The only way lies can defeat the truth is if the truth cannot be heard, and right now, the truth is not being well heard outside of our ranks.

 

In order to make this happen, I need to be able to wave some money under the noses of some fairly expensive folks.  Having been unable to focus on the proactive purposes for which the fund was originally established had made me reluctant to encourage contributions over the past year.  Thus, the fund, which, with only $500 ever having been paid out of it, stands at around $30K at this point.  This is pitifully, even shamefully small, considering the community of interest it exists to serve, and the national and historical significance of the good it can help accomplish if we move forward decisively right now.  So, I'm changing tack, here.  Please do what you can to help.

 

 

P. P. S.  There's something else that each of you can do to help that is also very important...

 

"We must note here, as a matter of judicial knowledge, that most lawyers have only scant knowledge of tax law."

Bursten v. U.S., 395 F 2d 976, 981 (5th Cir. 1968)

 

(Judges too, it would appear...)

 

One of the primary reasons that the legal profession has (at best) sat on the sidelines in regard to the effort of several generations of Americans to address the "income" tax subject is simply because those in that profession have no knowledge of this body of law.  Worse, and of much greater significance, attorneys and other legal professionals have watched as a long series of flawed "arguments" about the nature of the tax have taken the stage over the years, each presented as being the product of great research efforts, and each purporting to reveal the liberating truth about the tax.

 

These folks have (not unreasonably) concluded that there IS no sound argument, and no case that can be made in a courtroom-- imagining that if there were, surely someone in this long parade of gurus/activists/etc. would have presented it to the world before.  At this point, most won't even look at anything new.  Those in that profession must be persuaded to look, and to understand that they can now go into courtrooms across the country armed for bear.

 

Most everyone reading these words knows someone in that profession.  Please go to the trouble of printing out the Brief Introduction To The Income Tax, the press release linked above, and similar material available on this site, and then sit down with your acquaintances in the legal profession and see that they read these documents through.  Then watch 'It's Time To Learn The Truth About The "Income" Tax' and maybe 'The Q&A Movie' with them, and leave them a copy of CtC to read.  Help get these folks involved in upholding the law.

 

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate"

-Thomas Jefferson

 

What Happened Last Time...

 

*****

 

How About You?

 

Do You Let Others Tell You What To Say Or Not Say?

 

Learn the Truth, And Stand Up For The Law

 

Continued denial that what is presented in CtC (and only in CtC) is the truth, and the complete truth, about the income tax-- self-serving, carefully ambiguous tax-agency efforts to imply the contrary notwithstanding-- is just that: Denial.  It is dishonest and inexcusable, and nothing but a comfort to the enemies of liberty and the rule of law.  Get over it.

 

Yes, the fact that upon acknowledging this truth you will find yourself honor-bound to stand up and do something, is scary.  But the alternative is contemptible; and the long-run consequence of a widespread failure to act is a whole lot scarier.  Think about it.

 

Read the book.

 

Spread the word.

 

Stand up and act.

 

P. S.

 

Although I am reluctant to dignify the government's gross mischaracterization of certain events in my past with a response, that mischaracterization is not casual, or innocent-- it is presented as a deliberate effort to prejudice both the court and the American public against me personally, and against the substance of my message.  The latter can not be permitted-- nor can the harm these rumors might offer to my children.  Thus the following words of clarification:

 

On "tax day" in 1990, a smoke-bomb was placed in a collection bin at the post office in Royal Oak, Michigan, in full view of dozens of people who were on hand to protest the income tax, dozens more dropping their returns in the bin, and several postal workers.  The device consisted of a padded mailing envelope, containing a couple of teaspoons of loose black powder, a smoke agent and a fuse.  It was addressed to "The Tax Thieves" from "Freedom-Loving Americans", and contained a tea bag-- a symbolic expression sufficient unto itself, I trust.

 

I didn't put the smoke-bomb in the bin-- someone else did, and, ultimately, over my objections.  Nonetheless, because the person who DID plant the thing lied to the grand jury about his own involvement (despite being fully immunized, except against perjury), and instead pointed the investigation at me, I was charged with doing so (in the most elaborate, multi-offense fashion possible), and my wife was charged with furnishing some of the materials used in the device.

 

Perhaps because the protest was extraordinarily effective (it made the papers halfway around the world-- I have a copy of a newspaper from Guam in which the incident is breathlessly reported), the government found it necessary from the beginning to try to convert the reality into something that could be portrayed as heinous, so as to distract from the event's actual message.  Thus, although what really happened didn't merit it, the fictional version-- a "fire-bombing"-- inflexibly demanded a sacrifice, and the government insisted on prosecuting both of us.

 

On the day before jury selection was to begin, being faced with a judge who did not uphold a single one of our pre-trial motions, and in fact, made clear that he was hostile to us, rather than objective, I agreed to plead "guilty" to charges of "conspiracy to possess a destructive device", and to a gratuitous "failure to file" charge (to which I did not admit 'willfulness') for one of my previous 16 years of non-filing.  In exchange, all charges against my wife were dropped, ensuring that she would be free to care for our infant daughter.  This was how I came to be under the authority of a judge in the early nineties, as I relate in the foreword of CtC.

 

 

By the way, although the government has occasionally alluded darkly to a postal worker being injured by the smoke bomb, this is not true-- or, at least, you can judge for yourself from the following facts: On the last day possible to do so under the statute of limitations, one of the postal workers who had been at the scene was persuaded to file suit against my wife and me, and the others accused of involvement in the incident.  He claimed that his eyes were hurt by the flash when the thing went off-- a vague and unsubstantiated injury complained of by no one else present at the time.  We challenged his claim, but before the issue went to trial, the fellow happily abandoned the matter and disappeared, after being paid $500 to do so by a homeowner's insurance policy carrier which had agreed to defend against the suit.  As I said, you be the judge.

Why It Matters

Join The Lost Horizons Forum

Use the 'Back' button on your browser to return to the previous page