AndyK
Forum Replies Created
-
bruce wrote on Apr 14 2006, 12:51 AM:If the readers of Cracking the Code believed that the information was credible, they in fact had every right under the Constitution to question the Constitutionality of the taxes they had already paid.They also had every right to do their own research and check with other knowledgable people to confirm that the CtC approach was correct.? I don't know what Author #2's opinion would have been, but Bannister, Schultz, and several other notable Tax Honesty leaders have expressed serious doubts as to the CtC method.
Perhaps it would have been wiser to file suit against the tyrants; but who can ever win in ?tax court? playing by their rules??
If the IRS disagreed with the requests for refunds, they should have refused them.? Instead, they agreed with the refunds because they in fact paid them.? Now, because they returned the already extorted money without questioning the validity of the amended forms that the Citizens submitted, it is my understanding that there might be an issue of ?entrapment? which facilitated the implication that the Citizens were participating in an alleged ?tax-fraud scheme?.? I think the Citizens acted in 'good faith', assuming that they played by the rules when they made the amended filings.
The DOJ release reads in part as follows:
Quote:?WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Justice Department announced today that, in a nationwide crackdown against a tax-fraud scheme promoted by Peter Eric Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., it has brought suit against nine people this week?.emphasis added
The honest question is this, why did the IRS not just simply refuse to make the refund, especially if they thought it was illegal to ask for it? The obvious answer is that they wanted to crack down on Hendrickson, and to make an example of him to others who would dare to question whether or not the ?income tax regulations? are lawful.
[post=”2583″][/post]You have to look at the return processing system to see how these refund claims got through.
Paper returns are basically checked for completeness (all forms present, all lines filled in), arithmetic accuracy, and signatures and then they are entered into the system as they stand.
The actual matching of the income reported by the filer against payment reports from third parties (employers [W-2], banks [1099INT], and so on) doesn't happen until much later.
When the matching program reports a discrepancy, it requires that a person look into the matter and attempt to resolve it with the filer. If you visit the Lost Horizons forum, you will see any number of discussions regarding how to answer IRS requests for correction or clarification of these matching issues.
Once the IRS became aware of the trend in {to arbitrarily assign a name} “Hendrickson-style” returns, it added an additional review step to the initial processing system — look at returns claiming high refunds, low income, and with substitutes/corrections for W-2s and/or 1099s — to intercept these returns and reroute them for special attention. NOTE: the same thing was done some time ago when the “Schiff-style” 'zero' returns started coming in.
As to “entrapment”: unless the IRS has been working with Hendrickson for some time, helping him develop and promote his system, and encouraging him to set up others for penalties and other actions, there wasn't any entrapment.
Also, if you look at the suits that have been filed (with the exception of the Hendricksons), you'll see that the only claims against the people are repayment of the erroneous refund plus statutory interest and the costs of the legal action. No penalties, no additions to tax, no criminal actions.
That doesn't sound, to me at least, like vigorous enforcement actions.
-
Author #2 wrote on Apr 13 2006, 12:36 PM:Lchesson,
Thanks for your feedback. Both Sonik and AndyK have been rebuked publicly and equally for the same reason.
As far as whether AndyK is an IRS employee, I have in my possession an email forwarded to me by a third party in which he admitted same. Since he hasn't denied it, then under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), he admits it.
[post=”2577″][/post]I'm sorry, I thought I posted earlier that I do, in fact, work for the IRS.
As to Pete Hendrickson, the Department of Justice announced it has filed lawsuits against Pete, his wife, and seven other people to recover refunds which were issued to people who relied on the method detailed in Cracking The Code.
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06219.htm
Time will tell as to the merits of his methodology.
No opinions or editorial comments.
-
Author #2 wrote on Apr 12 2006, 09:39 PM:AndyK,
Thank you for admitting that EVERYONE on this planet is? is a LIAR, a COWARD, a SINNER, and unworthy of anything, including God's grace.? Even if they aren't a criminal under man's law, they are still a criminal under God's laws.? It's impossible to get off this miserable excuse of a planet without being convicted as a sinner and a criminal.
Quote:“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Eph. 2:4-10“Did not Moses give you the law, yet NONE of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?? Jesus, in John 7:19
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”? Romand 3:20
Yes, Hendrickson under man's law is unworthy and imperfect. He is just as unworthy and imperfect, according to Jesus, as you and everyone else are under God's law. This is not a defense of terrorism, but a restatement of our Lord's words above.
[post=”2572″][/post]Please stop putting words in my mouth. I neither said nor admitted any of what you are ascribing to me.
If I were to do the same to you, I'd either be censored of kicked off here before I could blink twice.
Finally, I seem to have missed any reprimands of Sonic for his statements along the same line. Are there multiple standards for different menbers?
-
Differences in opinion make for wonderful conversation and exciting horse races.
As long as opinion is expressed as such, it is irrefutable.
I have never, and will never, challenge anyone's opinion here. I may disagree with it and express my reasons for disagreement, but I will never say someone is WRONG.
I may controvert or rebut an argument with information I find elsewhere, but not with my opinion.
As to the facts of the matter, when someone is convicted of a crime, they are a criminal unless the conviction is overturned or expunged. When someone is proven to have lied, that makes him a liar.
As to Hendrickson, my extremely low opinion of him still stands. If that warrants censorship, then I seriously question the commitment to free speech here.
-
I read the referenced court case quite some time ago.
I specifically answered the way I did because I don't want to state an opinion in a way that could be construed as my attempting to foist bogus facts on the readers.
IN MY OPINION:
Hendrickson does not deserve to be considered a terrorist, like a suicide bomber.
His act was that of a coward, hiding away somewhere while his bomb injures innocent people.
Having accomplished that cowardly act, his next move was to turn State's evidence and testify againse his accomplices.
He is a coward, a liar and a con man.
END OF OPINION.
-
Before going ballistic, it might be a good idea to see what the organization intends to do
Quote:PURPOSETo increase communication, collaboration, and the exchange of information among the three countries in the areas of drugs, biologics, medical devices, food safety and nutrition to protect and promote human health.
MISSION
To protect and promote public health through a trilateral forum that shares information and works collaboratively on issues of mutual interest.
…..
C. Working Groups
The Trilateral Cooperation undertakes its work through Working Groups. Three Co-chairs representing each country head each Working Group. The Co-chairs are responsible for identifying issues for discussion and for seeking the Steering Committee's support. Current Working Groups include the following:
Canada-US-Mexico Compliance Information Group (CUMCIG): Its purpose is to increase the exchange of emergency preparedness and response, compliance and enforcement information between the three countries. The Group coordinates related enforcement activities with counterpart agencies in appropriate cases. Lead Country: United States of America.
Mexico-US-Canada Health Fraud Group (MUCH): Its purpose is to maintain a formal framework for cooperation in combating health fraud and to identify appropriate lines of communication to ensure a continual exchange of information on compliance and enforcement activities among the three countries. Lead Country: Mexico.
Laboratory Cooperation Working Group: Its purpose is to establish and maintain cooperation in the area of regulatory laboratory operations. Through continual discussions, this group is expected to share information with a view to building confidence in our respective analytical results. Lead Country: Canada.
Canada-US-Mexico Training Working Group: Its purpose is to share existing training information, establish a communication strategy between the Training Working Group and the other Working Groups, and to assist in identifying training needs of staff who will be engaged in Trilateral work. Lead Country: United States of America.
Somehow, that doesn't sound lilke a vast NWO conspiracy to subvert the will of The People, but I guess I'm not reading deeply enough betweeen the lines.
-
Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 11 2006, 01:58 PM:Rebuttal Anyone???
Someone please tell me Peter Hendrickson is NOT a terrorist. What happen to the folks that defended Hendrickson in this thread? It has been months!
Hello?
Sonik Speed
[post=”2558″][/post]Terrorist is a highly subjective definition.
You have to examine the information available to you, all of it, and make your own determination.
Consider ther alleged act, the alleged motives, and the thinking and purpose behind the entire alleged act. Also consider the victims and their involvement with the alleged intended target.
This may require straining your brain since there are so many different facets to the entire situation.
-
Quote:FindLaw's searchable database of the Supreme Court decisions since 1893 (U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: U.S. Reports 150-, 1893-). Browsable by year and US Reports volume number and searchable by citation, case title and full text. This is a free service that will remain free.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
FindLaw also provides access to:
– US Constitution
– US Code – laws made by the U.S. Congress.
– Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) – rules made by federal agencies and executive departments.
– Federal Register – official daily publication for Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as Executive Orders and other Presidential Documents.
and
US Courts of Appeals – Opinions & Web Sites
US Trial Courts Web Sites
Federal courts and other entities outside the Judicial Branch
US State Laws – Cases, Codes, Statutes and Regulations
-
Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 8 2006, 07:46 PM:AndyK – I've copied a long article on the 5th amendment and interpretation of double jeopardy. I'd like to submit it, but have no idea how to do so.
Sonik Speed says: Just copy and paste it into the forum.
Sonik Speed
[post=”2539″][/post]It's a 160K+ MS Word document. Isn't that too large for a post?
-
bruce wrote on Apr 8 2006, 02:50 AM:Since the time AndyK arrived in the Family Guardian Brotherhood Forum he has attempted to inculcate us with his IRS rhetoric.? Most of which is anti-constitutional by nature.? His understanding of the law is unreliable and flawed, evidenced by his continual opine without legal standing.? For instance he contends, again without merit, that because Schiff was convicted of a crime, that this somehow legally proves that the IRS system is valid.
That's quite a leap from what I said!
BS! We are to presume [Schiffs conviction] this was lawful, otherwise [logically] why would he have lost the case against him?? This is flawed reasoning and just plain mob rule by way of example.? Almost every post, at least the ones I have read are riddled with this type of misquided logic.
I agree with the Author2, that adaquate comprehension of the 'original intent' and the 'spirit of the law' conveyed by the framers of the Constitution, would in fact cure the disease that has engulfed AndyK's way of thinking.? A simple cure for the anti-constitutionalist AndyK, is the understanding, that the Constitution was written in fact to protect “we the people” and their rights.
? ?
Furthermore, AndyK quotes, in part extractions:
Quote:Schiff was not convicted of failure to file and pay income taxes because he made the 10 mistakes you list above. He broke the law and was convicted.emphasis added
Quote:Instead of just making allegations, post something of substance, as you did regarding the contract/constitution issue.emphasis added
It's not up to me to defend Schiff's conviction. Anyone who believes that there was a miscarriage of justice is welcome to post specific facts supporting that contention. I will be happy to discuss them. Until that happens, all other claims of persecution, reilroading, kangaroo courts, etc are merely rhetoric.
If you read the above statements from AndyK's post, you will find that AndyK violates his own reasoning and though processes. In order for AndyK's quote to be “something of substance” he would have to include for our reference: what “law” Schiff broke., and what law requires anyone to file, or what law in the IRC defines “income”, or what type of “taxes” is lawful. Just because Schiff was convicted doesn't prove to me that he broke the law. Andy's credibility would be better served if he would stick to the facts; because the only opinions that matter in our legal system is that of the Supreme Court Rulers.
Interesting comment by Andy:
Quote:Apr 5 2006, 08:46 PMBut to get back to your/my original issue — stupidity versus insanity: Just because someone is (as you cited) “very well educated” does not mean he can't, at the same time, be as dumb as a door post. I'm sure you, like everyone else does, know a fair number of well-educated but stupid people.
You speak from an authoritative view [having possesion of the transcripts]; that is like telling the judge you have evidence but you are going to have to buy it yourself if you want proof.LOL So far, you only speak from hearsay, again without, in your own words “something of substance”.
Hey, come on Andy, be a sport, you brought up the transcript, or the knowledge of it that refutes the Author,… the monkey is on your back, post the unlawful arguments that Schiff made. If not, pick up your toys and go home!
Borrowing Bing's favorite saying: “you have been hoisted on your own petard”
(((((((((((((BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM))))))))))))))))
Hey Andy, are you really the Lambskin? 😆
[post=”2536″][/post]Last thing first. I maintain that I am not Lambskin. The Moderator, if he chooses, can verify that I am posting from different addresses which lends support to my statement. However, it is impossible for me to prove that I am not someone else.
Finally, I don't have to prove anything.
The people who are making allegations have to put up facts or stop making the allegations.
I'm still waiting to see aome facts supporting the statements made earlier.
By the way, the text highlighted above is opinion on your part. As I have was warned earlier to separate fact from opinion, I request that you do the same.
-
Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 7 2006, 11:47 PM:AndyK – How much did you pay for his trial transcript and from where did you get it?
I bought it, for over $100, from the trial reporter who covered the case. In addition to not wanting to give away anything which I paid for, the hard copy transcript is the property of the reporting company. They are obliged to provide a copy, for free, to the Court, but I'm not sure as to if the prosecutor and defendant have to pay for their copies. They are permitted to sell additional copies to anyone who wants to buy one and they are also permitted to restrict resale of the documents.
The philosophy of this website is: Buy the truth, but sell it not. While your agreement to this philosophy is not put upon you by force, I for one, hope you agree with it. But anyway…
However, if I may kindly interject into your conversation with Mr. Author #2, then I would like to say that the Constitution is an implied contract. Certainly it has the some elements of a 'social' contract. I yield to VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795):
Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void.”That's quite a statement and I completely agree with it. As to the social or implied contract concept, it has a great deal of merit. However, it does not transmute the Constitution into a “contract” in the sense of contractual or commercial law.
Secondly – I, as a philosopher, am not interested in “opinions” and I am very confident that you are not either. Please stick to facts.
Sonik Speed
[post=”2535″][/post]If I EVER post anything which is opinion (and I fail to say that it is my opinion) please mention it and I will correct it. I do tend to editorialize, but I try to keep that separate from factual information.
-
Author #2 wrote on Apr 7 2006, 02:40 PM:AndyK,
I don't believe that you, as an IRS employee, personally paid for ANYTHING.
Believe what you want. If I had a work-related requirement for the transcript, I probably could have gotten a copy through work. I paid for it on my own.
Your employer paid for it. Are you implying that your employer doesn't want the public to find out about what happened in the Schiff trial because the sheep are more compliant when they are ignorant?
I'm not implying anything. You're inferring an inappropriate conclusion from facts you're creating out of thin air.
Keeping the sheep ignorant is not in the public interest and undermines the sovereignty of, We The People, who you exist EXCLUSIVELY to serve and protect as a public servant.
In case you're not aware of it, many civil service employees serve the public by enforcing laws — even laws which some self-declared sovereign doesn't want enforced.
Quote:?As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.? ? Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.? ? That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.? ? and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.? ? It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.? ? Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. ?[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, ?247]
And that quote has what relevance to the topic at hand?
Author #2
[post=”2533″][/post]If you want a copy of the Schiff transcript, spend your own money.
-
Author #2 wrote on Apr 7 2006, 12:16 PM:AndyK,
Why don't you enlighten us all by emailing the PDF of the Schiff Transcript so we can post it. Email to submissions(AT)famguardian.org. The Website administrator will post it for you if you add a note of explanation.
Author #2
[post=”2531″][/post]How about because I paid for it and I don't feel like giving it away?
-
You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to mine.
I disagree with your opinions.
Schiff was not convicted of failure to file and pay income taxes because he made the 10 mistakes you list above. He broke the law and was convicted.
As to your allegations of Judicial abuse, you are incorrect. Schiff decided the rules of court procedure, of evidence, and of testimony didn't apply to him. Unfortunately he was incorrect.
Quote:To Schiff's credit, there was also SEVERE malicious abuse by the judge and the jail of due process and fair play, and they cast EQUAL dispersion on the motives and conduct of our “public servants”. For instance:1. He wasn't allowed to call his witnesses.
He was attempting to call witnesses whose testimony was not relevant to the case at issue.? He was trying to have other people teatify that HIS interpretation of the law was correct.? That is not how the court system works.? A person is not allowed to argue the meaning of the specific law.? He can challenge the VALIDITY of the law — which usually leads to a Constitunality interpretation and ruling.? Schiff didn't do that.? He wanted to argue that his view was right and the government's was wrong.
2. When they threw him in club fed, he was abused by the guards. They made him sleep on a cold hard concrete floor without a mattress in an unheated cell for days, until someone outside complained to a Congressman about the abuse.
Prove it.
3. The judge, who had a conflict of interest and was subject to IRS extortion in violation of 28 USC 455,
Prove it.
would not allow him to talk about the law during the trial. He received an additional year of sentence relating to contempts for bringing up the law during the trial.
That is not why he was found in contempt multiple times.? Read the trial record and get the facts.
This abuse by the judge is described and denounced as EVIL in Great IRS Hoax, section 5.4.4.4. A judge who refuses to discuss what amounts to Private Law is interfering with the right to contract of the parties, because Private Law essentially is a contract. How can you enforce a contract that you refuse to read and discuss? The purpose of this tactic is, of course, to politicize the trial and thereby abuse the evils of democracy to trample on people's rights and it amounts to treason by the judge.
Private Law? Contracts? Why do people keep bringing these things up when they are totally irrelevant to the issues at hand?
Instead of just making allegations, post something of substance, as you did regarding the contract/constitution issue.
Finally, in MY opinion, the theories and arguments in The Great IRS Hoax are still pending validation. As you know, the government has taken issue with them and has commenced legal action against Family Guardian.
Until that action is concluded, one way or the other, The Great IRS Hoax is still questionable as a reliable source for dealing with taxation.
-
Author #2 wrote on Apr 7 2006, 12:11 AM:AndyK,
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court identified state constitutions as “contracts”. Therefore, the federal constitution would appear to fit the same description:
Quote:“A state can no more impair the obligation of a contract by her organic law [constitution] than by legislative enactment; for her constitution is a law within the meaning of the contract clause of the national constitution. Railroad Co. v. [115 U.S. 650, 673]?? McClure, 10 Wall. 511; Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 429; Sedg. St. & Const. Law, 637 And the obligation of her contracts is as fully protected by that instrument against impairment by legislation as are contracts between individuals exclusively. State v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190; Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U.S. 358 .” [New Orleans Gas Company v. Louisiana Light Company, 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]Author #2
[post=”2527″][/post]No, I am not incorrect. Try reading the citation with your comprehension switch tured ON.
It is saying that (under the “Supreme Law of the Land” principle) the Federal Constitution's prohibition “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…” applies not only to laws passed by the states, but to the state's constitution as well.
It does not say that the state's constitution is a contract.