If the report is accurate about Hendrickson's defense strategy…it looks like he's going to take the burden of proof off the prosecutor by making a case for his position. 🙁

Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm oversimplifying but I don't think the gov. would have had so many victories if the defendants would just have let the prosecutor try and negate a defendant's sincere belief in his or her position and therefore prove willful failure to file.

How is the prosecutor going to prove a negative.

Virtually all of the defendants who lost in court did indeed sincerely believe in their position. And so they should not have been convicted. But their sincerity of belief got trampled underfoot by their own need to demonstrate…to show…to convince…not that they were sincere…but that they were right.

But what admissible proof can a defendant offer that shows the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified.

Or where does it say in 26 USC 861 that gross income only includes those items listed.

Or isn't it possible when a defendant sticks a fat 26 USC volume under the judge's nose and says show me the law that says I have to pay tax…that the judge (who hasn't read 26 USC) or the jury members (who haven't read 26 USC) could conclude the defendant missed the paragraph…hidden in all of that gobbledegook…that says he has to pay the (unspecified) tax.

Instead of shooting holes in a defendant's sincere belief in his or her position…the prosecutor is given many other things to shoot holes in and that undermines the defendant's credibility and sincere belief.

Sincerity about the rightness of a defendant's belief should be the defense offered. But in-your-face Rightness (as in I'm right and you're wrong) seems to be the usual defense offered by those defendants who lose.

And it's ironic because Rightness is not a necessary element in a decision to stop filing. The only necessary element in a decision to stop filing is Sincerity. <_<

Sincere belief that one is right…about the 16th amendment or Sec. 861 or the lack of law…is very different from proving that you actually are right. Sincerity is subjective and only requires credibility to prevail. Actual rightness requires objective persuasive proof to prevail.

Hendrickson if he wants to do the prosecutor a favor and take the burden of proof on himself may be another unnecessary martyr.

Admin

You've probably noticed the popularity of this excellent debate with neo. 🙂

It's one thing to read the various documents…and a completely different thing to read those findings collated with precision in a lively argument (in the real meaning of that term — a debate built around premises leading to necessary conclusions.)

The documents display research par excellence. The debate displays teaching par excellence. Those are two distinct skills.

When someone can understand complex research and present it elegantly (with dashes of humor “asbestos drawers” 😆 ) and accurately…that's genius. Not many university professors can pull that rabbit out of the hat.

(Richard Feynman…the particle physicist…[Nobel prize 1965] was one of the few who could help you understand what actually happened when God said “Let there be light”. Though he was not writing from a religious perspective.) You guys are right up there making it crystal clear what happened when the de jure government said “Let's incorporate so we can get rid of the separation of powers problem” among other things.)

This post is just to let you and neo know how it's being received by at least one appreciative reader. Thanks.

Franklin

Armstrong's view of religion…follow the golden rule…would bring peace and prosperity to the entire world…if it were the personal decision of humans to do so.

However…it cannot be done politically by a United Nations Charter.

When religion becomes political then demonization of other religions (as in the Crusades and modern “Muslim terrorists”) takes place…and force along with the whole spectrum of political chicanery is activated.

Involving the United Nations (whose peace keepers are notorious rapists of refugee children*) in religion is no different and no better than having the Vatican involved in what is essentially a personal, religious, non-political commitment to live by the golden rule.

The golden rule must be in one's heart…not hanging on the wall of the United Nations.

Armstrong seems to be a well-intentioned religious truth-seeker. However, she appears completely naive in seeking to institutionalize the golden rule with the pagan diety known as the United Nations (“to help with the bureaucracy” of her effort…as Armstrong herself put it). Doing the right thing toward others requires neither a political charter nor a bureaucracy.

She seems to me to be a modern day Eleanor Roosevelt who wants to have her name associated in history as the champion of the United Nations Golden Rule Charter. Just as Eleanor wanted hers associated with The United Nations Human Rights Charter (which did nothing to prevent Guantanamo or the rape of refugee children).

Armstrong…in my view…definitely wants her left hand to know what her right hand is writing…and wants increased fame in history as the champion of the Golden Rule. I for one can manage to do it without a United Nations Charter which would be…to quote GWB…just another “g

Franklin

* 2002 story ignored by the press during the Archdiocese of Boston scandal. Google without quotes “UN peace keepers rape refugee children” for the many stories about those degenerates.

F

So criminality is genetic. I thought so. <_< Thanks for the post.

It would be great if tax trial jurors read the law during a trial…and told judges they have an obligation to rule on the law as well as the facts. The lawyers in black robes who weren't smart enough to make partner (and became judges) would soon have to tell the truth.

Grand jurors also need to know what the ambitious prosecutor is withholding from them…so they could be careful then not to indict that ham sandwich.

(No intention to be cryptic here…It's an old contemptuous joke of prosecutors that they have so much control of grand juries that they could convince the jurors to indict a ham sandwich.)

Franklin

I think they're going to have a hard time and not just because they're going to be within the jurisdiction of the court. But because the way they operated it looks as if they were co-conspirators in tax evasion.

I suspect the prima facie evidence is strong enough to convince most jurors of the prosecutor's charges. 🙁