Printable View
Let me offer a possible solution. The court wants certain testimony, then go ahead and declare her incompetent, then let IRS fill out the form, forge her signature on it, and let the fed pay the bill. They could then claim victory. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOntheLand
If you are suggesting the conduct of the IRS is ridiculous, I agree with you. IRS could have just audited Doreen's returns and recalculated her tax bills. But they obviously want to grandstand, probably in an effort to discourage Pete Hendrickson (since he has not given up on spreading his CTC dogma despite going to prison himself) by going after his wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Howard
I wonder why none of the lawyers here will admit they are attorneys? If I make it through law school I might be the first.
Pete has done a great and valuable thing by digging into the tax code, discovering it really has a narrow focus, but misapplied by the priesthood to things it shouldn't. And then he bravely shared that by authoring books. I applaud him for that. It's unfortunate he isn't open to the notion of a tax on currency issued by a federal instrumentality (Federal Reserve bank). You know the railroads were determined a federal instrumentality and gains from railroad investments are taxable. The combination of Pete's Cracking the Code and David Merrill's redeeming lawful money has been a 6-year winner for me.
30 minute video - Unlearning the Income Tax with Peter Hendrickson
I would admit to such if I were a lawyer, Johnny Cash. I guess I should be flattered by your repeated accusation. :) I am an informal student of the law, but I do take my study very seriously.
I learned much from Pete's work and agree with your take on him overall. I also learned a lot from Pete's criminal trial. It is unfortunate he is closed minded about the way the court system really works as well as the remedy we discuss here. It was the feeling of "just one more piece missing from the puzzle" that led me here. I am grateful for Pete for shedding light on such a big part of that puzzle.
I contend that no contract was actually formed...
Oh really? Because a contract was formed with a W-4 creating a W-2 or a W-9 creating a 1099. Which one was it for Doreen?
And all of the blathering and whining and nonsense is NOT GOING TO CHANGE A GOD DAMNED THING.
I contend that no contract was actually formed. There is a presumed contract only. The fact people do not know there is any contract being formed is exactly my basis for saying no contract was actually formed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldi
Waivers of rights must not only be voluntary, but must be knowing intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences, per U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. United States.
For a contract to actually be formed (as opposed to mere presumption of a contract) there must be a meeting of the minds, intent to be bound, consideration, and most basic of all, DISCLOSURE THAT A CONTRACT IS BEING FORMED and a VOLUNTARY EXERCISE OF ONE'S FREE WILL TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT.
If you really had a choice explicitly offered to you, who would voluntary elect to receive Federal reserve credit in lieu of lawful money? Who would agree to convert his right to work and be paid tax free for his labor into a taxable privilege?
Economic duress, no practical alternative, absence of consideration and no disclosure whatsoever. Any one of these conditions may render any presumed contract voidable. However, the party presumed to be obligated has to first recognize that they are being presumed to be under contract, and then challenge that presumption.
In Doreen's case, a presumed contract will stand unless and until she recognizes that the Court presumes a contractual obligation exists (as opposed to obligation conferred by public law).
Your 6 and my 2 makes 8, anyone else? Please add your years to the scoreboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
Let me suggest that you find your happiness elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldi
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Howard
no signature is needed,
better not to sign, no perjury,
IRS is not required to sign a substitute for return (which they prepare when a taxpayer fails to file.)Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
No signature from taxpayer on return=no valid return. In Doreen's case, failing to file would probably also be contempt of the court's orders, since she is presumed to be required to file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
Here is what a 19 year old gets from the government in BC.
It is when they transfer the medical over from parents to the grown child (adult)
Attachment 1255
and backside
Attachment 1256
pay close attention to the declaration.
especially the last line in the declaration.
that "declaration and consent" tells me that there is an Act that makes one exempt from paying income tax,
they also bring up a 'trust' by mentioning "beneficiary"
we sign this stuff when we are 19 years old and have no idea what is going on,
i got a friend to stop signing income tax return forms and he did and his return goes through fine,Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOntheLand
might be 5 years know of him doing it.
You are apparently in Canada, so I am not sure if you are talking about 1040 tax return or not. Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6065 requires returns to be signed under penalty of perjury. Federal courts have ruled that a return not signed is no return at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
Notwithstanding the alleged success your friend has had, IRS could at any time decide his returns are not valid. Since you allege that he has done this for several years, his failure to sign would be obviously deliberate, and on that basis they could determine his returns to be frivolous ($5,000 fine for each return).
Not to presume any ill intent on your friend's part, but if he is avoiding signing the returns because of false information provided on the returns, he may be technically avoiding perjury. But IRS may be able to go after him for fraud or tax evasion, even if he did not sign the returns.
I have seen returns sent back by IRS simply because the signature was a photocopy and not a wet-ink signature. I have no personal experience with unsigned returns. Why bother filing at all if you are not going to sign the return? If you are giving honest information then what is the harm in signing it? If you are not going to be honest, you would be better off not filing at all than to commit fraud or evasion by giving false information.
Have you read the notes under 26 USC 6065? "Amendments: 1976 Amendments. Pub.L. 94-455, § 1906(a)(6), struck out provisions relating to the authority of the Secretary or his delegate to require that any return, statement, or other document to be made under provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be verified by an oath." I would agree that due to non disclosure one can alter the contractual nature of the W-4 or the W-9, but not under the Brady Doctrine which is about waiving a constitutional right. It's about forming an intent to attain purposeful availment. You cannot form an intent without full disclosure of all the benefits and detriments of what you are signing. You can pretty much say that about any form gov. has for you to sign.
I have not seen the notes under 26 USC Sec. 6065. I believe this amendment would have effect only for those who come under the purview of the publicly enacted revenue laws. Amendments of the publicly enacted law do not have any effect for those bound contractually by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The code itself IS the law for those bound by it contractually. Regardless of this amendment to 6065 you refer to, the code itself still requires a return to be signed (for those presumed to be contractually bound).Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldi
Btw, is signing a return and declaring the contents to be true and correct under penalties of perjury the same as being verified "by an oath"? Isn't it just an affirmation of correctness of the information?
If your position is that no one is required to sign a tax return, this does not jibe with decisions of federal courts declaring an unsigned return to be a legal nullity (understanding that in such cases the taxpayer is probably presumed to be contractually bound).
Re: Brady Doctrine: I invoke Brady based on the right to labor for compensation tax-free per Supreme Court in Butchers Union v. Crescent City and Coppage v. Kansas, which is being presumed to be waived by signing the W-4 or W-9. This right to tax free compensation for labor is included in the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, secured by the 5th Amendment, and the right against involuntary servitude, secured by the 13th Amendment. I agree with you 100% about disclosure being required to form an intent. As such disclosure is not made with W-4 and W-9, you have impermissible unknowing waivers of those constitutional rights per Brady, as well as failure to form a contract.
Man on the Land gets it, few do.
Lets look at the presumptions that no doubt were never challenged from the indictment.
1. DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON ("HENDRICKSON") was a resident of Commerce
Township, Michigan.
First is the woman known as Doreen Hendrickson or DOREEN HENDRICSON?
Second is the woman a "resident" of Commerce Township? I dont understand what those terms mean, i am going to need an admission that they mean.....
As Man-on-the-Land states appearance according to the court rules nullifys a challenge to jurisdiction. Is that true? Do rules of court count as law? Did a legislative body enact said law? Do rules apply to me?
There are so many frauds upon the court in any complaint or hearing minutes that its hard to mention them all.
The named party and post location will always be false and are used to establish jurisdiction. There will usually be a SSN or Drivers license number named on minutes EVEN THOUGH it was never produced as evidence or testified to so that is hearsay and inadmissable.
"I am John Doe, a Common-law-free-man, here under protest, by special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and service of process only in this court-of-record."
do you have a 21 silver dollar bond on file showing your not a pauper under the articles of confederation? Did you put an affidavit of corporate denial, statement of status, who you are and who you are not into the record as a plea in abatement? We can only guess what law they are opperating under because they will never openly state it. IS it Common-law, Equity, Maritime or Admiralty or some unConstitutional form of law? Whats a $?
Contempt is an abomination to the Consitution. The only reason for Contempt is when someone refuses to do what a jury sentences you to do. It's not contempt to ignore a judge cause unless you consent to having him make a judicial determination he cant do it under the Constitution. You cannot go to jail for peonage (owning a debt) so if you don't pay the IRS you cannot be sent to jail. So they got aroung that by making rules of court (not enacted law) that you can go to jail for any reason the judge decides is good enough. You can only do time for committing a crime and a crime by definition is an injury or loss to another man (not the State).
Doreen's case has gone to the jury.
The verdict is in, 11 for slavery, 1 for freedom. Thank God for jury nullification.
This is an excellent overview of the real issues in Doreen's trail.
I believe her fate will be called voir dire (questioning prospective jurors). And the judge will disallow Cracking the Code to go into evidence. After all, this is a contempt accusation, nothing to do with income tax law...
"The only question before the jury is whether Mrs. Hendrickson has willfully disobeyed a lawful order.
Oh, but there is this one thing. The court has taken the word “lawful” out of the statute in charging Mrs. Hendrickson.
The law under which Doreen is charged says that the court may punish,
“Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”[1]
But astonishingly, the presiding judge, Victoria Roberts, has agreed to instruct the jury that the constitutionality or lawfulness of the court’s order is no defense to the charge. Judge Roberts is simply ignoring the troublesome word “lawful” in the statute.
According to the court’s jury instructions, the order Doreen is accused of disobeying can be completely unlawful, and unconstitutional to boot, and she still has to obey it or go to prison.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the mischief such power might instigate."
Do you think the Department of Injustice will try again?
I hope not. I feel for Doreen. The DoJ really wants her conviction as a trophy though.
That is quite the Find, the lack of the term "lawful"! It would seem useful.
Pete said "Folks, we don't know that the count ran 11-1. All we know is that one juror was singled out by the others at one point as being particularly adamant on Doreen's side. Others may well have been undecided at the point at which it ended, but when it became clear that one or more were not going to convict, and one or more apparently weren't going to go the other way, the jury declared itself deadlocked."
I know that Doreen decided not to sign the tax returns "under penalties of perjury" (26 USC § 6065 - VERIFICATION OF RETURNS) perjury jurat is mandatory only on statements that are required by an IRC statute or regulation) and the courts have ruled that such a verification renders such statements admissible evidence, then she would be a witness against herself.
In the beginning did the revenue agent assigned to Doreen’s case who looked at the voluntary self assessment tell Doreen to sign the forms or did the revenue agent file a complaint before a judge and have the judge summons her to court to sign the IRS documents?
You will not force me to sign a contract I do not agree with when it comes down to 18 USC § 1621 made within or without the United States.
It had to escalate from there.
Was the proper procedure was done to Doreen? What was the argument between Doreen and the revenue agent before the court action was brought against her?
Did the revenue agent initiate the suit? I don’t see the revenue agent(s) name in the court document.
Is it true that the revenue agent can only go so far on anyone before any action is brought on the filer without a court order?
By the book don’t you need a judge’s signature before any action can be imposed or does the revenue agent have the liberty to do what they feel like doing?
It states on the court document that an indictment from a grand jury charges (a group of people who deliberate whether a case has enough merit to warrant a trial) that Doreen filed a false and frivolous returns in 2002 and 03.
Who told the grand jury that it’s okay to be witness against oneself?
Did the revenue agent or the IRS lawyers tell the grand jury that the returns were false and frivolous? And why were they false and frivolous?
Did the revenue agent or the IRS lawyers file in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT where Judge Victoria A. Roberts received the case for Doreen to summons her to court and force her to sign the IRS forms and witness against herself?
Who is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filing the charges on the court document?
Is it the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (North America) the name of this country bringing on a civil action against Doreen or is it Title 28 15 ABC ?