...my mother was found guilty. I don't know how, really...I'm angry and confused, mostly. As you can imagine, I need some time to process this outcome before I can do a full report.
For now, I'll just say sure was interrupted three times by the Prosecution during her closing argument, and once, they even went to side bar (Google it). In their closing, the government did the same things they objected to my mom doing, but she didn't know the terms to object. They attacked her character, misrepresented facts, and appealed to the jury's pride, jealousy, and spite. It was...truly low.
More later, I promise.
P.S. A quick chuckle, perhaps: it turns out that Melissa Siskind, the primary Prosecutor, when she was looking at my Facebook, accidentally sent me a friend request. She deleted it, of course, but I still got the notification. So, that answers a couple questions, I suppose.
(Days 3 & 4 here...)
Katie, I'm devastated by this news but not surprised. We live in a totally corrupt society, and have been for quite some time. Plus, the jurors are obviously stupid and ignorant despite the Prosecution's heinous efforts. Hopefully your Mom will be granted appeal and win on that. Thoughts and prayers for your family. Know in your heart that many know the truth and are with you. - Phil
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your support, Phil. I will certainly pass it along to my mom. Best of luck to you, as well!
DeleteThe "totally corrupt society" is difficult to understand, because since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the federal government has been absolutely clear and consistent and public in declaring that what is taxed is ALL INCOME, from whatever source derived.
DeleteNow, there are crackpots like Peter Hendrickson (or Doreen Hendrickson) who pop up from time to time and declare that, no, my income is not taxable because (fill in crackpot theory here). And the government proceeds to enforce the tax laws against them in the same way that the tax laws are enforced against everyone else.
And how is that "corrupt"? How is it "corrupt" to say to Doreen Hendrickson that the same tax laws that applied to everyone in 1913 continue to apply to her today?
Dan, do you research much? Fact 1: The 16th gave Congress NO NEW TAXING POWER they already had. All it did was allow them to tax 'income' from any source if there WAS 'income' derived from that source. Fact 2: As I stated in an earlier post (perhaps you missed it or just ignored it), 'INCOME' is gain or profit from a privilege or taxable event. It is NOT just 'getting paid for working'. Fact 3: The judge and Prosecution over-stepped their bounds in trying to convict Doreen. The orders given to the jury were CRIMINAL. - Phil
DeleteYou say you "don't know how" your mother was convicted.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain.
Your mother was ordered by a court to file tax returns in a way specified by that court. Your mother appealed the order and the order was affirmed on appeal.
Your mother decided not to do what she was ordered to do.
She was therefore convicted of criminal contempt of court.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Court order. Deliberate violation of that court order. Conviction of violating the court order.
Her choice was perjury or contempt.
DeleteThe IRS is REQUIRED to file a return with numbers they think are correct if they disagree with what someone has put on their own return.
They didn't, but instead tried to force her to do so, to violate her first amendment rights, and perjure herself.
Let's use a metaphor.
I have a couple of friends who say they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). This really bothers me. So I tell them, "I don't like you saying you believe in the FSM, so either you're going to sign this paper saying you don't, and never say you do again, or I'm going to put you in jail."
And they protest, "But we do believe it!"
And I respond, "But I don't like it. Sign the paper."
And they say, "Well, why don't we discuss our differing beliefs, and then we can both sign a paper stating our own beliefs?"
And I reply, "No, I don't like yours. I'm not signing anything, but you have to sign this lie, or go to jail."
And they cry, "But how can we make that choice? Either commit perjury or go to jail for not doing so? Both are crimes!"
And I say, "I don't care, and here are all my friends who don't like your beliefs, either, so either sign that paper saying what we want you to say you believe, or we'll put you in prison!"
Does that clear things up?
How can you be so flippant about first amendment rights? It doesn't matter what the belief is, no one can be persecuted for believing it. Now, if the IRS had wanted to take my mom to tax court over the forms, that would've been one thing. But they didn't. Instead, they tried to get her to change her OWN testimony.
Just think about that.
So much misinformation, and so little time.
DeleteYour mother had a choice between filing a correct return or being in contempt of court. She chose contempt.
It's not "perjury" if it's true. It's not perjury for your mother to file a legally correct return that she does not believe is correct for the same reason that it's not murder for your mother to believe that she killed someone even though she didn't.
The IRS is not "required" to file correct returns for people who file false returns.
You don't get to choose whether the comply with the tax laws for the same reason you don't get to choose whether to comply with the laws regarding robbery or murder.
So, your mother is not being prosecuted for her beliefs, but for her actions. As one judge put it, "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. 'Tax protesters' have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead — so tax protesters think — to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them." Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
If some day you start thinking for yourself, I hope that you are able to forgive your parents for the pain that they caused you over the nonsense that they chose to believe.
Ditto, Mr. Evans.
DeletePerjury is committed when someone declares to be true something they do not actually believe. See definition 2: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
Actually, they are: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6020
We never claimed wages aren't income, and we never have, never will. Please read the book and stop making uninformed accusations.
Interesting. So, what you're implying is that, if I stated thinking like you instead of my parents, I would be thinking for myself? Very interesting , indeed...
Also, I have to ask: why does this matter so much to you? Why do you take time out of your day to address this? Just curious.
Nothing you cited supports your positions.
Delete18 USC 1621 defines perjury as testifying falsely, i.e., telling a lie, not as making a statement the speaker does not personally believe.
26 USC 6020 allows the IRS to file a return if someone required to file such a return fails to do so. It does not require the IRS to file such a return. Moreover, 26 USC 6020 does not even allow the IRS to file a return to replace a false one, only to create a return if one does not already exist.
I have read CTC. And it does say not all wages are income. Wages do not cease being wages just because your father finds that inconvenient.
Here, let me quote these for you:
Delete(2) ...in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
(1) ...or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
I'll also clarify:
Not all earnings are wages.
It's not enough that the speaker believes his statement is false; it must really be false:
Delete"The basic element of the crime of perjury is that the challenged sworn testimony must be false. No one may be lawfully convicted of perjury where he gives an answer which is "literally accurate, technically responsive, or legally truthful." United States v. Wall, 371 F.2d 398, 400 (6th Cir. 1967); Smith v. United States, 169 F.2d 118, 121 (6th Cir. 1948). It is the obligation of the government to prove to a moral certainty that the defendant "purposefully misstated the fact knowing it to be false and untrue." Van Liew v. United States, 321 F.2d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 1963)." U.S. v. Makris, 483 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 914 (1974).
Guy Helvering, regarding your statement that "Wages do not cease being wages just because your father finds that inconvenient." ...
DeleteSTATUTORY "wages" still must be the RESULT of a privilege or taxable event. Assuming you have a job in the private sector, please cite us the privilege or taxable event (the law passed by Congress) making your receipt of earnings a privilege or taxable event that produced statutory "wages". - Phil
The "not all earnings are wages" business is pure sophistry.
DeleteIn common English usage, in court opinions, and in the Internal Revenue Code, the word "wages" means the earnings from employment. Peter Hendrickson has his own idiosyncratic definition of "wages," and he has fallen into the "Humpty Dumpty" trap of which he accuses everyone else, which is believing that you can unilaterally define what words mean.
There is a story that Abraham Lincoln was asked why he didn't declare the slaves to be free, and he responded by asking how many legs a lamb would have if you called a tail a leg. The answer, according to Lincoln, was still four, because calling a tail a leg didn't make it a leg.
Many lawyers fall into the same trap, of assuming that calling something by a different name changes the nature of the thing. But it doesn't. And what is a trap for lawyers is a looming chasm for non-lawyers, so Peter Hendrickson dove into it head first. His "Cracking the Code" is nothing but word games. He thinks that, by manipulating words, he can conclude that the money he receives is not "wages." The readers of his book might be stupid enough to believe that, but the courts are not.
And the "federal privilege" nonsense is pure fiction. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that federal taxes can only apply to "federal privileges," nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that says that, and nothing in any court decision that says that. Quite the opposite, in fact. Hendrickson's claims to the contrary are pure fabrications.
Which is why both Hendrickson and the readers of his book have lost in court in ever case before every judge.
And why do I care? I see so much misinformation out there, and I keep hoping that some accurate information will make a difference. I don't know that it does, because a lot of people are very emotionally committed to their misinformation, but I keep lighting the candle.
Dan, noticed you didn't respond to my other post regarding 'INCOME'. Here's another one for your misrepresented 'no tax on privilege' rhetoric. And please read up on direct and indirect tax classes, regarding the Constitution you reference. I digress.
DeleteFrom the words of F. Morse Hubbard, a former legislative draftsman for the U.S. Treasury Department (one of those whose job it is to write tax statutes and regulations)...
“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they
produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” [U.S. Congressional Record, March 27, 1943 (page 2580)].
- Phil
The Quatloser is wrong. My income is not taxed. In fact I haven't paid income tax since 2007 thanks to Mr. Hendrickson. No IRS issues. This despite depositing tens of thousand$ into the bank annually & receiving 1099 reports. We've been greatly deceived.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you haven't been caught doesn't mean that what you do is legal.
DeleteThe fact that Genna's referral of my case to DOJ went nowhere, the fact I've been very public about my IRS success for years, and the fact quatloo silenced me ... all indicate what I do is legal.
DeleteJohnTT, was all your earnings via 1099 info returns? I know in my industry it appears the Feds are 'suggesting' that companies only take W-2 contracts, not 1099. I believe the reason is withholding, where they already have your money. - Phil
DeleteJohnTT if you are receiving 1099's then that income is taxable...it'll catch up sooner or later....I heard it takes about 3 to 5 years for any 1099's to get reviewed by the IRS....its just a matter of time.
DeleteBesides you're such a liar you wouldn't tell us the truth anyway if you are currently receiving IRS correspondence about your 1099's not being filed.
Phil, yes the bulk of my income since 2007 has been via 1099 reports or no reporting at all. Some years I did file a 1040 (jointly) to help my wife get a larger refund.
DeleteAlso, my research shows both "Rod Knocker" (BrainySmurf76) and "Jesse James" are quatlosers masquerading as Pete's Warriors. We have been greatly deceived.
Phil...go to savingtosuitorsclub.net and see for yourself that this JohnTT (Libra, Noah, Homie) hasn't filed with the IRS since 2008.....that's no success!
DeleteClaims hes a Hendrickson Hero by saying hes hasn't had any IRS problems...but yet hasn't filed "anything" with the IRS since 2008.
And he doesn't promote CtC.. but rather the "lawful money" scam that's perpetrated by David Merrill Van Pelt.
That's why hes been banned three times by Pete Hendrickson under three separate names.
JohnTT, is that you Homie (johnthetaxist) bragging about a lawful money scheme?
ReplyDeleteJohnTT doesn't file any 1040's and 4852's.
ReplyDeleteThis JohnTT is none other than Libra whos been banned on losthorizons and is now posting under Homie posting the same lawful money scam that got him banned under Libra.
JohnTT hasn't file a 1040 since 2008 so hes no CtC success story.
Hes scam artist that promotes "lawful money" than CtC.
P.S. Not sure if that wierd formatting in the third line is showing up for you, too, but I'm not sure what it is...
ReplyDeleteDan, noticed you didn't respond to my other post regarding 'INCOME'. Here's another one for your misrepresented 'no tax on privilege' rhetoric. And please read up on direct and indirect tax classes, regarding the Constitution you reference. I digress.
ReplyDeleteFrom the words of F. Morse Hubbard, a former legislative draftsman for the U.S. Treasury Department (one of those whose job it is to write tax statutes and regulations)...
“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they
produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” [U.S. Congressional Record, March 27, 1943 (page 2580)].
- Phil
You are correct, Blogman. Much of the confusion stems from the W4. What many have overlooked (and what Dan doesn't understand, which he doesn't seem to want to because that would be detrimental to his cash-cow and ego) is in order for ones common right earnings to be taxed is it has to be "wages". That link is the Social Security as seen in 301.6109-1(d),(c) and (b) where that is the link to IRC 3401 and 3121. Just like the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security scheme was passed as a tax on wages. No one can withhold from basic earnings. So through coercion,fear and ignorance, a W4 is used. You see you do not have to participate in SS nor is a SS# required for work, BUT once it's obtained, then that's their only way to classify your earnings as "wages" (SS is a privileged thing) and honor withholding requirements. All that still doesn't mean you've received a 'profit or gain' requiring a return, it's all just erroneous bad payer data.
DeleteRod Knocker, thanks for the thanks! Just telling it like it is. Some out there can't deal with that (see Dan Evans and the like). Yes, the 'volunteering' by our common-law employers of themselves and common American workers as statutory "employer" and "employee" respectively, seals the deal. It's a total coercive effort, although somewhat unwittingly by the "employer" who fears the IRS like most everyone else because 'the Emperor has no clothes' and rules the land.
DeleteWhat I can't seem to tie together is the tax on "wages" for the 'privilege' of SS, vs. what is the privilege/taxable event for the tax on earnings as 'income'? The supposed 'gain or profit' from your earnings for non-SS tax is, what exactly? In other words, I'm being taxed at a % for a 'privilege' of receiving SS. Then, I'm being taxed at a different % for 'income', of which 'income tax' I do not know of. It appears that the 'tax' on 'income' is just an extension of the tax on SS but with a different tax rate, i.e. your total tax (SS + 'income') is the SAME TAX on the 'privilege' of receiving SS, just separated and with a different tax rate. RK, your thoughts are welcome.
Finally, regardless of which tax is being levied, they BOTH do not fall under either the direct (apportioned) or indirect (uniform) tax classifications under the Constitution. Therefore, misapplied according to the Constitution.
- Phil.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe money I receive is not "wages" and I've paid no tax on it since 2007 thanks to Pete. Social Security is a separate legitimate tax but totally optional and I've not participated since then too: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/SSA_2014_3.jpg
ReplyDeleteBeware! Based on my 6-year interaction with him, I believe RodKnocker=BrainySmurf76=jessejames=LarryWilliams=Famspear (the quatloser). He's very experienced at the game of disinfo, mixing truth with lies to create confusion. Notable because he has no conscience; can lie without feeling bad about it at all. Do not be deceived.
I and Jesse James have discussed it in depth on
ReplyDeletehttp://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526--cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson
Scroll through the first probably 15 pages. Jesse James isn't in agreement with me that enrollment into SS via ignorance or coercion W4 doesn't make one liable, doesn't make work a taxable "source", etc but it is where it stems from. We see this when one files the correct amount of "wages" and gets the SS tax overpayment returned. Because we see in the Senate hearing where agents withhold from the nontaxpayer too and the filing a 1040 is how you get returned what was withheld in case there was actually a liability.
More found on the LH Forum http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3177
I know talking about your Mom's conviction has to be tough for you, but I am hoping you can give us a fuller roundup of the trial. What did your Mom testify to on direct? What was she asked on cross-examination? What did each side argue in their summations?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I was driving from an hour and a half away the morning of my mother's testimony, and much of the rest was a frenzied and angered blur for me. However, I believe we now have the transcript, so I can check it and pick out highlights next time I have a moment, if you'd like.
DeleteI recall a "Dr. Caligari" posting on the quatloser webstie.
ReplyDeletehttp://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg
I believe you're right, but he's not been too mean to us, as far as I've seen. Therefore, I bear him no ill will.
Delete