Games - Artwear - Wisdom Wall Art - Stationery - Homeschooling - Don'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);

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.

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.