A DOJ Desperate To Suppress The Truth Files A Profoundly Corrupt Lawsuit Ironically, The Department Is Forced To Illustrate A Key Lesson Of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' In The Process... FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Judge Orders Michigan Couple To Testify Against Themselves
On February 26, 2007 and again on May 2 of that year, a team of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorneys and Federal District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the Eastern District of Michigan tried to order Peter and Doreen Hendrickson to testify against themselves.
Judge Edmunds (described by The Ann Arbor News and The Grand Rapids Press as guilty of perverting justice in another recent case, as well) granted a DOJ- and IRS-requested “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. The suit, and Edmunds’ “order”, are part of a sustained IRS effort to suppress revelations about the true legal nature of the income tax presented in Peter Hendrickson’s book, 'Cracking the Code- the Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America', which have had the tax agency in behind-the-scenes disarray for many years now. Since the book went to print in August 2003, readers have been steadily recovering every penny withheld from them in connection with the income tax from the federal and state governments -- including Social Security and Medicare ‘contributions’.
Edmunds’ "order" is purely for the consumption of a gullible public and press. Forcing someone to change sworn testimony is not only outside the authority of any court (or anyone else) but attempting to do so is a violation of several different criminal statutes.
Nonetheless, the DOJ and IRS have made careful and deliberate use of the "order"-- posting press releases claiming a victory in court, without mentioning that the "order" 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. Along with issuing the “order” regarding the Hendricksons’ previous testimony, Edmunds also played her part in another sleazy IRS pretense by way of this “lawsuit”, involving agency-fabricated mis-statements of law it mendaciously claimed were found in Hendrickson’s book. In constructing its “complaint”, the government asked Judge Edmunds to enjoin the Hendricksons from filing returns reflecting these fabricated, erroneous legal assertions that it had itself invented in order to create a pretext for an injunction that suggests that Hendrickson's book contains inaccurate information. (This ruse had become important to the government because it had repeatedly lost direct legal assaults on the content of the book in 2004 and 2005.) Edmunds compliantly issued this additional meaningless injunction, barring the Hendricksons from filing any forms based on IRS-invented false and frivolous nonsense which no educated person would take seriously, but which Edmunds suggests are set forth in 'Cracking the Code-...' (even if only in an "order" actually written by the IRS's attorneys). These “claims” allegedly appearing in the book-- such as that “wages do not constitute income”, or that “only government workers are liable for income taxes”-- not only do NOT appear in the book, but are, in fact, explicitly contradicted by the book. The tax agency then began announcing that Pete Hendrickson has been enjoined against acting on what is presented in his book, when Hendrickson and his wife have actually been barred from nothing by this “injunction”. (Furthermore, such an injunction would be outside the power of the court in any event, since to tell anyone what he or she CAN’T say amounts to dictating what must be said, and thus violates a host of core due process elements, as well as the First Amendment.) Judge Edmunds did all of this without the formality of a trial, and despite the fact that not only do the official Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment show that outside the pretenses of this "show trial" even the government agrees that the Hendricksons owe no taxes for the years in question, but nowhere in the complaint or throughout all the filings in the case does the DOJ present a shred of evidence in support of its bare allegations.
The Hendricksons have taken the matter to the Supreme Court.
The IRS has been trying to suppress Hendrickson’s book since it first appeared. This latest effort is actually the fourth to make it into a courtroom. In each of the previous three, the DOJ itself asked the various courts involved to dismiss the agency’s suits once they were contested, but in this latest instance, the intensity of the IRS’s desire apparently overrode the DOJ’s better instincts.
'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 benefits of federal privilege, such as dividends from federally-controlled corporations, and compensation paid to federal officeholders. Earnings unconnected with such privilege are not subject to the tax. Unaware of these special definitions, most Americans give the words their common meaning, fill out and sign their tax returns accordingly, and mistakenly pay taxes they do not owe.
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 and in its “lawsuit”, the agency 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 $10.18 million (as of 8/28/09) received by his readers since the book was first published. 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 this "lawsuit" more than 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 the book began. The only differences between pre- and post-"lawsuit ploy" is that now many more state governments (33, so far) have joined the feds in acknowledging the truth about the law revealed in CtC than had done so before. This discrepancy between rhetoric and reality is broad and consistent. 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. Three of the other four targets of these "lawsuits", however, surrendered to 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 connection with the repudiated original filings. In fact, the "righteous and victorious" feds formally agreed to take a hike in exchange for the new filings. In the fourth case, the refund secured by the original filing was handed back as the government’s price for having the suit dismissed, but no amended return was filed. The DOJ issued a self-congratulatory press release claiming “victory” in this case too, but later the IRS quietly credited the returned money in full as a positive balance on the related “account”... 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 losthorizons.com each and every week, or the thousands more who have enjoyed such victories without having been so generous of spirit as to share them. At least three of the victims of these seven "lawsuits" have gone on to secure subsequent complete refunds even after having been singled out for this "special attention". 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 www.losthorizons.com For a quick introduction to the truth about the tax, see www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf In June of 2008, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a carefully-error-ridden "decision" upholding the district court's equally bogus "rulings". As is described in our petition to the Supreme Court, A. The courts below have abused their discretion in the award of summary judgment to the government, and have thereby also committed an assault on the Seventh Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court granted the “U.S.’s” motion for a summary judgment in this case by making “findings of fact” which elevate all of the (hear-say) allegations presented by the “U.S.” to gospel and disregard entirely our sworn testimony to the contrary-- despite having no independent knowledge of these matters whatsoever, and alluding to none. The court then declares that, lo and behold! no genuine issue of fact exists and (based on the same “found facts”) summary judgment for the “U.S.” is appropriate! This is highly convenient to the “U.S.”, of course, but flatly violates the well-established doctrine regarding such motions: “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Adickes, 398 U.S., at 158 -159” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). “[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party's evidence "is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [that party's] favor." Anderson , supra, at 255” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999)
It also flatly violates the admirable and accurate position well-expressed in Beaty v. United States, 937 F.2d 288 (6th Cir. 1991): “A central tenet of our republic--a characteristic that separates us from totalitarian regimes throughout the world--is that the government and private citizens resolve disputes on an equal playing field in the courts. When citizens face the government in the federal courts, the job of the judge is to apply the law, not to bolster the government’s case.”
Frankly, it is just this sort of contrivance that the rules concerning summary judgment are designed to prevent, and that the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes illegal by providing that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. If permitted to favor one side in this fashion, any court could keep any case-- the outcome of which it wished to control-- from reaching a jury by making convenient “findings of fact” favoring one side, just as has been done by the District Court in this case. Nonetheless, when allegedly considering the matter de novo on appeal, the panel of the Circuit Court simply repeats the District Court’s bad behavior. Perhaps the Appellate Court’s error results from confusion as to both who was the moving party in this case and as to the rules regarding summary judgment. Discussing those rules in its opinion, it says, "Thereafter, the nonmoving party must present significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion. The nonmoving party is required to show more than a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” (Citations omitted.) However, the “non-moving party” in this case were the defendants, who obviously do NOT need to “present significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion”; more significantly, the “non-moving party” is NEVER “required to show more than a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact” On the precise contrary, it is the MOVANT that must attempt to raise doubts as to the existence of an issue of material fact; the non-movant need merely show that there IS an issue of material fact in controversy. In this case, a third party has alleged that “Event A” occurred, on the basis of which alleged event the “U.S.” argues that we are indebted to it. We have testified-- both long before this case began and directly in response to the motion for summary judgment-- that “Event A” did not occur. There can be no plainer “issue of material fact.” Neither the District Court nor the Circuit Court have any first-hand knowledge whatever as to the occurrence of “Event A”, and thus have no basis upon which to make “findings of fact”, even if such findings were not the proper province of a jury in any case. Yet both courts presume to make such findings. The courts below thus abuse their discretion and, without regard to the fact that the only proper disposition of this case is dismissal, do violence to the spirit of the 7th Amendment as well. The appellate Court compounds the abuse and that violence by punishing us with sanctions for invoking its supervisory authority over the District Court! This Honorable Court has plainly declared, “The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). We appealed a District Court ruling based on the straightforward meaning of this declaration, among other things, and the Appellate Court declares our appeal to be “frivolous” and punishes us with sanctions! We appeal to this Honorable Court for its protection from this abuse. We feel obliged to observe that in addition to sharing the Circuit Court’s “confusion” about the rules concerning summary judgment, the District Court exhibited considerable “confusion” about matters of concrete fact throughout its Final Rulings. For example, in those rulings the court deliberately quotes one line of Peter Hendrickson’s book, ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ out of context so as to suggest that the book argues that income tax-related withholding only applies to federal workers. The book does contain that one line, but makes no such argument. Income tax-related withholding in other cases is discussed in depth in the book. Similarly, the District Court refers to “the false and frivolous claims set forth in 'Cracking the Code' that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax”; and “the assertion that wages do not constitute income for federal tax purposes”. No such claims are made in the book; in fact, the book specifically says otherwise in great detail. Most egregiously, perhaps, the District Court makes the following declaration in its final ruling: “The only new argument is that “the statutes invoked or relied upon by Plaintiff and the Court . . . are unconstitutional, being plainly violative of at least the ‘necessary and proper’ clause of the eighth section of Article One, and the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Articles of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” (Defs.’ Mot. for Reconsideration at 9.)”
What we actually said in the referenced motion is: 4. Regarding Plaintiff’s requests for an injunction and coerced testimony and the Court’s related decisions, it is self-evident that to dictate what cannot be said is to dictate what must be said, or to impose silence. It is not necessary to discuss Plaintiff’s calculated mischaracterizations of what is said in Defendant Peter Hendrickson’s book or Plaintiff’s pretensions in suggesting that it possesses some mystic knowledge about the underlying meaning of our tax return testimony in order to observe that neither Plaintiff, nor anyone else on Earth, has the lawful authority to dictate the content of our testimony, or to impose silence, in the face of allegations concerning us, such as those on the “information returns” made so much of by Plaintiff in this case. To whatever degree the statutes invoked or relied upon by Plaintiff and the Court can be construed to provide for such an injunction and coercion of testimony, those statutes are unconstitutional, being plainly violative of at least the “necessary and proper” clause of the eighth section of Article One, and the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Articles of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such efforts to dictate or control testimony also violate various federal criminal statutes regarding witness tampering and intimidation, as well as the fundamental principles of due process. The very fact that Plaintiff has sought such an injunction, and a coerced change in testimony we have already made, is a plain acknowledgment that Plaintiff has no legal basis for disputing the freely-made testimony on our returns. The same plain truth is revealed by Plaintiff’s inability to carry its burden of proof throughout this contest, and its failure to even try to do so. Plaintiff CANNOT substantiate the allegations made on the “information returns” upon which it relies, and therefore seeks to prevent those allegations from being rebutted.
It is not for us to say whether these mis-statements and contrivances are calculated to plant false notions about our arguments and positions in the minds of those who read only the rulings by the court and not the actual materials we filed in the proceedings below, and to suggest that we are “tax protestors”. However, if left unaddressed, these mis-statements will leave such false notions. Therefore, we bring them to this Honorable Court’s attention here. |
Both the district and appellate court "rulings" are designed solely to give the DoJ the ability to declare that "Hendrickson has been ruled against!" when actually decisions containing the due-process violations deliberately incorporated in these both of these are what are known as "void rulings": Void judgment. One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. Black's dictionary of Law, Sixth Edition.
Attorney Mark Phillips put it this way: When an agency of government can dictate and compel a defendant's sworn testimony, the outcome of any legal action or proceeding becomes preordained. In short, as alluded to, supra, the result is that any “legal” proceeding of any sort is reduced to a mere Kangaroo Court: “…a sham legal proceeding in which a person’s rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a forgone conclusion because of the bias of the court…” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition. This is something out of Orwell or Kafka’s most feverish nightmares, and precipitates a hellish descent into a totalitarian tyranny the likes of which make Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Maoist China seem like a veritable jurisprudential Elysium in comparison! This would be, needless to say, the total destruction of the legal system, of Due Process and the Rule of Law. The bottom line is clear: NO ONE can lawfully dictate or compel a person’s sworn testimony—PERIOD! On a comparatively ever so slightly more banal note, we should also nonetheless emphasize that the lower courts in Hendrickson’s case have: Erred, in the District court, in issuing a summary judgment based upon improperly construing the record un-favorably against the non-moving party (the Hendricksons, Petitioners in the instant case), and in favor of the moving party, in blatant contradiction to clearly-specified and well-settled law (see, of course, this Honorable Court’s own rulings, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, INC., 477 U.S. 242 [1986], and Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 [1999]). The 6th Circuit Appellate Court clearly erred in not catching (or, more likely, unlawfully and malfeasantly deliberately ignoring) this and remanding the case back to the District court for proper adjudication. No court can accept the movant's allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant's rebuttals in issuing summary judgment. PERIOD. It doesn't—and cannot—matter what the case is about.
(a) issued federal-income-excise-tax-related injunctions based on unilateral, unsubstantiated, and already-rebutted determinations, despite clear provisions in the Declaratory Act, codified at 28 USC §2201, barring the making of such determinations in the context of federal tax litigation; (b) permitted litigation clearly barred by the principles of both res judicata and collateral estoppel to nonetheless go forward, despite clear provisions to the contrary codified at Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (c), severely punitively sanctioned Petitioner Hendrickson merely for appealing outrageous judicial decisions and actions purporting to (and purporting to have the lawful authority to) do all of the above-discussed utterly lawless improprieties!
It’s important to note, as this Court will see if it will only review the actual pleadings and evidence in the case, that Hendrickson has done NOTHING—ABSOLUTELY NOTHING—but follow and/or invoke the LAW—straightforward, crystal-clear, black letter LAW. The federal government (U.S. Attorney) completely lacked authority and jurisdiction to even initiate the action against Hendrickson, and the District court’s first error was in not dismissing the suit immediately upon Hendrickson’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction! The rest of the history of this case is nothing less than a pathetic, ridiculous downward spiral of judicial corruption, malfeasance, and venality. Taken as a whole, this entire pattern, or ensemble, if you will, of behavior on the part of the lower courts in this case clearly evinces—indeed, constitutes—not merely reversible error, nor even censurable misconduct, but impeachable malfeasance of the most outrageous and egregious sort. And yet this Court has—so far—shamefully shirked its responsibility and duty under the Constitution to act to maintain Justice and the Rule of Law. The actions and judgments and/or orders issuing from these lower courts are indeed clearly void ab initio, as any judgment is void: that violates due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938); Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E.2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v. Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill.25 (1936)
if the judge failed to act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997)
when the judge does not follow statutory prescriptions and/or procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921)
where the complaint states no cognizable cause of action against the opposing party, for whatever reason, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)
where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings and with proper standing to sue, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994)
Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985), Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339, 85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940). (Read all of Mark's letter to the Supreme Court on this case here.) |
Here are the briefs we filed in the appeal of Edmund's "ruling"; and here's the raggedy three-judge-panel opinion for you to read for yourself... Just for comparison, here is an example of what a real appellate opinion, of the sort issued when the court can actually justify and support its ruling, typically looks like. Interestingly (and amusingly): The DOJ Finds That Even Its Cooperative Appellate Panel Has Its Limits On July 21, 2008, the DOJ filed a motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the "not for publication" June 11 ruling of the three-judge-panel of that court in the hokey and inherently void effort to force my wife and me to swear to the truth of dictated testimony be re-issued as a "published opinion". The DOJ argued that the decision of the panel needed to be published because-- according to the department-- it "applies an established rule to a novel fact situation, in that it rejects as baseless the tax-avoidance scheme used by Mr. Hendrickson and advocated in his book...", that is (as coyly included as a footnote), "[T]he time-worn protest argument that wages are not income is not new, but the scheme advocated by Mr. Hendrickson is essentially a new take on an old theme and has been sufficiently convincing that it has attracted a significant following of persons willing to test it.". Man, these guys s-o-o-o-o wish that CtC actually made that argument... The DOJ also tries to convince the panel that publishing the decision would "serve the public interest as it would provide a more prominent deterrent to the many individuals" who have found CtC persuasive (prominent, maybe; deterrent, I don't think so), and makes clear how important it is to the IRS that CtC-educated Americans be "deterred" (well, they got that part right...). I didn't bother filing a response to this motion, because I figured there was no way the panel would agree to make its embarrassing "opinion" any more prominent than it was (and besides, one simply can't respond coherently to gibberish that has reached a certain depth). Further, I couldn't see anything but upside in this matter being made more prominent. At some level of prominence, someone in the press is going to look further into this whole affair than the DOJ's self-serving and deceptive press releases... The panel, however much it is prepared to quietly perform as a shameful accessory to the government's purposes, apparently agrees with me about "prominence" not being in its interests: |
Our Formal Response To The Panel's Decision... ...and now off to the Supremes! ***** The Supreme Court Kicks The Can Down The Road On June 15, the US Supreme Court shamefully declined to hear the petition filed for its review of a blatantly unlawful series of acts by both a district and an appellate court as described in detail here (and which is discussed concisely in the film 'Are You Ready?). A petition for re-hearing has been filed. I hope that all of you and your uncles, cousins and sainted grandmas will get involved in flooding the justices with letters urging them to not slink away from this hot-potato a second time. Many good folks participated in a multi-signature letter effort organized by the virtuous Tim Whitney over the last couple of weeks prior to the initial consideration of the petition, and a number of others acted independently, as well. These efforts were great, but clearly not enough. Hundreds of citizens expressing concern about this affair apparently don't mean much to the court-- perhaps thousands will. That said, it's important to recognize the significance of the court's decision to avoid this case. The issues in this petition are simple, straightforward, inescapable and profoundly important-- and completely independent of the income tax. For instance, no one can lawfully be told what to put on ANY statement over his or her own signature. Period. It doesn't matter whether its a tax form or a birth certificate or a statement to the police or ANYTHING. No court can accept the movant's allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant's rebuttals in issuing summary judgment. Period. It doesn't matter what the case is about. In ANY other case in which these issues arose, the court would unquestionably just overrule or remand the case with appropriate instructions, as a matter of course and without a second thought. That it did not do so emphasizes the fact that the spread of the information revealed in CtC is understood at all levels of the state as the catalyst for the transformational shift of power away from those in whose hands it is now concentrated (amongst whom are those on the federal benches, and those to whom they are beholden) and back to the hands of the people, to whom it really belongs. Indeed, these issues NEVER HAVE arisen before, and thus the court's effort to dodge them is all the more telling. That is, the lower courts' behavior is not in keeping with "settled law", such that the high court could be expected to take no special interest-- it is exactly the contrary. The lower courts' behavior is directly in violation of numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions and well-settled doctrine pursuant to those provisions, including many Supreme Court precedential rulings. Thus, the case is a prime one for the high court's consideration-- and yet the court declines to take it up. This can only be out of recognition of the significance of the outcome if the issues should actually get the hearing that they merit. Of course, the Supremes may also be engaging in a little gamesmanship in this evasion of its responsibilities in order to protect the PR value of these bogus "rulings" to the ignorance-tax schemers (which, you will recall, were rendered as "not for citation as precedent"-- even after a specific DoJ request to the contrary) . For instance, the court may be silently invoking some legal gimmickry concerning "standing" or "ripeness" as a pretext for passing on the case at this point, since no effort has actually ever been made to enforce the "rulings". Or, the court may be taking one step further back, and its declining to take the case may be in silent recognition of the fact that these rulings are simply and plainly void on their face. But this is a distinction without a difference, because again, in any other case in which the same bad behavior had taken place in the lower courts-- but in which the continuity of the "ignorance tax" scheme was not at risk--, the court would certainly have accepted the petition just on the basis of the due process and other procedural violations alone. Make no mistake. You CtC warriors are the force that stands on the verge of restoring the Constitutional republic designed by the Founders. Those who oppose that design understand this, and you must understand it, too. |
*** Update Ah well, bad behavior runs deep. In Mid-July, even while out of session, the Supremes again declined to hear the case, without comment-- doubtless based on the fact that it is technically moot, as noted above. It remains up to the rest of us to look after the rule of law, and prevent the bogus lower court "rulings" from being exploited by the law-defiers. "[I]t is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1950 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. 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 |
By the way, this lawsuit is the fifth IRS assault made on CtC in the courts What Happened The Last Four Times... ***** 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. Being entirely unable to refute my arguments about the law both in CtC and elsewhere, the government (and its fellow travelers) have descended to cheap (and inflammatory) "ad hominem" attacks on me personally by way of a gross mischaracterization of certain events which took place many years ago. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. (From Wikipedia)
The attacks on me are intended to substitute for responding to what I reveal about the law, or producing evidence against those revelations-- because those who wish you to remain in ignorant bondage HAVE no response to those revelations, and no evidence which contradicts them. Hence, their only hope is to try to smear me personally, in hopes that you will turn away without having learned the truth. These attacks are meant to raise doubts about my character, of course, and if I asked anyone to take what I say about the law on faith, I suppose that unfabricated data about my character might be a proper subject for consideration. However, since I DON'T ask anyone to "just trust me" about the law or anything else, but instead simply point out what the law actually says, and teach people how to look it up and read it for themselves, my character is, in fact, irrelevant, and would be even if I were a complete scoundrel. Those making these ad hominem attacks haven't any respect for such logic, of course-- indeed, their only concern for such logic is in hoping that it won't occur to you. (Ironically, it is the folks making these dodge-the-real-issue attacks against me, thereby revealing their own bad character, who DO actually ask you to "just take their word" for what the law says ...) All that said, though, the smears against me ARE based on gross, deliberate mischaracterizations, and demand a response, however distasteful and otherwise inappropriate it is to dignify them by going to the trouble. Thus, the following words of clarification regarding what the government and its shills represent as a "bombing" or "firebombing" by me: On "tax day" in 1990, a simple smoke-maker 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... and the same sort of tea bag now used in hundreds of protests occurring around the nation today. The object was both to protest the outrage of the tax, and to help let the many others who felt the same way around the country know that they were not alone. I had a hand in the planning of this event, and in assembling the smoke-maker, as well. In the end, though, I concluded that the plan should be aborted. My "colleagues" disregarded my objections and proceeded anyway. Nonetheless, in part because the person who DID plant the thing lied about his own involvement during a grand jury inquiry in such a fashion as to point the investigation at me, I ended up charged with doing so (in the most elaborate, multi-offense fashion possible), and my wife was charged with furnishing some 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 subvert 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 a charge of "conspiracy to possess a destructive device". 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. (I was given a three-year sentence. Afterwards, urged to do so by my court-appointed attorney with the assurance that it would simply result in a more just sentence, I explained the real nature of the affair to the prosecutors-- that it was merely a protest, and that not only had I not planted the device, but I had ultimately objected to its being planted. I offered to substantiate this with a polygraph. The prosecutors-- disingenuously-- proclaimed the outcomes of two separate polygraphs to be "inconclusive". Eventually, my wife and I managed to record a conversation with the fellow who actually had planted the smoke-maker which substantiated everything I had said about the affair. In the end, this led to a reduction in my sentence.) Not the best time in my life, certainly; but not what the government absurdly fabricates in its efforts to attack me, either. By the way, although the government has occasionally alluded darkly to a postal worker being injured by the smoke-maker, 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 unsubstantiable injury complained of by no one else present at the time. My wife and I challenged this opportunistic allegation, and 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. |
