Dear ___ (this is going to a
group of folks I consider
leaders in the CtC community, of
which you are one),
It is incumbent upon us all to
immediately-- IMMEDIATELY-- get
in front of the inevitable
corrupt statist effort to milk
my persecution for every
possible drop of discouragement
of those standing up for the
truth about the tax. I think
that doing everything possible
to flood the net (and MSM, if
possible) with countering
information which most folks
simply won’t think of, is
critically important. Time is
of the essence, as impressions
will be taken right now, and
will be hard or impossible to
undo later. Please read through
the following for some
inspiration and post, post, and
post again! Encouraging
everyone to write “letters to
the editor”, blog posts,
news-group posts and so forth of
their own is also important.
Subject and content and talking
points are illustrated by the
following utterly disjointed
collection of thoughts:
-
It will help folks in the
community understand the
contrived nature of Monday's
affair by pointing out the
absurdity-- even
surrealism-- of Rosen
inexplicably declaring me to
be "using (or clinging
to) my own definitions of
terms" when I have always
just presented everyone with
the words actually found in
the statutes, and tried in
this latest case to have
those presented to the jury,
while Rosen
actually insisted on giving
made-up definitions (written
by the prosecution) to the
jury instead. That is,
Rosen and the DoJ are the
ones clinging to and relying
upon their own
“definitions”, not me-- I’m
happy with what Congress
actually says,
(There's also the issue of his
"explanation" that giving the
definitions as written in the
statutes, as I requested, would
have meant giving them pages and
pages, even unto the whole IRC,
I think he eventually said or
implied, and it was just too
much. This is ridiculous, of
course, since the statutes
involved could fit on a dozen
pages or so, total; and
especially so when you consider
that he was perfectly fine with
the prosecution giving the jury
a six- or seven-inch-thick stack
of documents from the IRS and
Michigan-- all with no
testimonial backing, of course.)
-
Rosen repeatedly recited the
mantra that “the courts have
ruled against you, Mr.
Hendrickson!”, as do and
will the various shills for
the state. He (and the
shills) try to confuse the
listener into imagining that
his having contrived to deny
my various motions and
successfully shepherd an
evidence-free prosecution
into a conviction, and the
fact that a gimmicked
“summary judgment” was
issued in a “civil case”,
means the same as “the
courts have ruled against
what you say about the law,
Mr. Hendrickson”.
The fact that these are the ONLY
cases he can cite as having
“ruled against me”, and
that no evidence was ever
introduced by the
government-plaintiff in either
of them, and he was
forced to jury-rig key
definitions (best use I’ve ever
had for that expression!),
and, in the “civil case”, no
hearings were ever held, and
the rules controlling summary
judgments were violated, and
an unconstitutional order was
issued, all of which was then
upheld by an appellate court
that actually wrote the
summary judgment rules backward
in its not-for-publication
“ruling” (which it subsequently
refused to publish, even after
the DoJ requested publication,
thereby admitting that what it
had done was a personal mugging
not suited to the light of day
and one which it didn’t dare
treat as precedential at risk of
review) makes this just crafty
bs.
This IS pretty clever, though.
It will actually work with those
who never look at the
contrivances in these two cases
(or evidence such as the
appellate court’s published
order denying the motion to
publish its “ruling”) and who
therefore never discover that
they all involved court and
prosecution evasions of what all
other courts have had to say
about the law and the issues in
these cases, and instead imagine
Rosen and Edmunds to be
aboveboard and honest. That is
to say, this will work with
anyone who doesn’t actually look
at the evidence and the facts…
-
It’s funny to listen to or
read some of the CtC-denying
spin-meisters out there
sonorously pontificate about
this trial and its
significance. These same
folks variously recognize
and rail against corrupt
courts which have managed to
find ways to uphold illegal
wiretaps, or denial of
habeas corpus, or bogus
property seizures, or Second
Amendment violations, or who
will rail against legal and
juristic corruption when
“Obamacare” is soon upheld
by many courts (as it will
be, however it ends up when
all is said and done). Yet
somehow they imagine that in
the handful of cases in
which the very life-blood of
the unlimited, overweening
Leviathan state is
threatened, the courts
involved are suddenly
paragons of virtue, and the
outcomes of these trials
should be viewed as solid,
trustworthy reflections of
the truth about the law
(despite the actual words of
the Constitution and the
statutes, the dozens of
Supreme Court cases and all
the other hard authority
that squarely reveal and
support the actual truth
about the law, none of which
these folks will
acknowledge-- or probably
ever even read themselves).
-
The spinners in the “tax
honesty” community are the
worst of these mendacious
prevaricators (if I may be
pardoned the redundancy).
They pretend that while they
don’t doubt the general
corruption in the courts,
the outcomes here prove that
CtC has flaws, by refusing
to see, study or acknowledge
the contortions that these
courts have had to go
through in order to evade
the plain fact that CtC is
right, and so completely
right as to force the judges
and DoJ tools of the state
into becoming double-jointed
in order to evade its
rightness.
-
Plain,
unambiguous evidence of DoJ
malfeasance and evasion,
like the deliberate
misrepresentation of the
jury instructions given and
other prevarications
discussed at
http://losthorizons.com/LastShotForTheLawDefiers.htm#33010,
the fact that no assessments
of any tax owed have been
made of me for any years for
which I have filed CtC-based
rebuttals and refund claims
as is discussed and proven
at
http://losthorizons.com/PostCertsOfAssess.pdf,
and other such on-paper,
impossible-to-deny-or-spin
counter-weights to the lies
should be deployed and
discussed, as well. In
other words, we can prove
who’s lying, and need to do
so. I have posted an
enormous amount of
information and evidence
regarding this in the civil
and criminal assaults, not
to mention the EWWBL and
victory highlights, as well
as the routine victories and
so forth. All should be
used.
Here is a post Doreen made to
the Michigan CtC group forum
touching on a few other good and
important points, and
incorporating some of the above,
as well, that is a good example
of what I’m talking about here:
“The DoJ(sic) ensured that the
result of the sentencing hearing
was made public as quickly as
possible. The Detroit News had
it posted before we got home,
WJR had it on their 3:00
newscast, and the Oakland Press
was induced to make it their
front page headline on Tuesday.
We've all seen little
one-paragraph blurbs somewhere
in Section A when the government
gets a real tax conviction, but
nothing like this.
It's telling that the government
is so threatened by the truth
that they find it necessary to
persecute the messenger, hoping
that everyone else will return
to blindly doing as they're
told. After all, it'd be
awfully difficult to explain why
they to this day continue
refunding property in more than
10,000 filings, if any news
organization were to look into
it. After all, it would be big
news if the government were to
attack >10,000 Americans for
upholding the law. The fact is
they had no case, never proved
it, and found a willing
participant in
Rosen. He declined the
opportunity to show integrity
and honor that he expects from
people in his courtroom when
moved to acquit when the
prosecution rested.
Rosen entered the courtroom
appearing a bit under the
weather, perhaps suffering from
the last vestiges of
conscience. Rambling on from
his (likely DoJ prepared) notes
for the first 45 minutes or so,
he proceeded to let the lawyers
speak, a wholly unnecessary
gesture, since he already had
"his" notes. He chastised Peter
for defining words, forgetting
that it was he who defined words
in the jury instructions
(denying the jury's request to
see the statutes), while Peter
simply asked for the jury to be
given the statutes. Playing to
the audience, he engaged in a
pretense of some armchair
psychology in his efforts to
explain why Peter wouldn't just
do what he's told, in order to
divert the packed courtroom's
attention from his own confused
and self-contradictory ramblings
intended to justify his rulings.
[On another note, in ruminating
about my response here, I've
been thinking about some of the
CtC-deniers out there who have
been pontificating about Peter's
trial and its significance.
They rail about the general
corruption of the courts in many
other matters, but claim that
this outcome somehow proves that
CtC has flaws. They refuse
to look at and acknowledge the
contortions the courts have
undertaken in order to evade the
truth that CtC is right and
that, as Peter put it so
eloquently in his allocution,
"If the DoJ had even one SC
ruling to prove CtC wrong, Mark
Daly would have it tattooed on
his forehead so he could see it
every morning." The fact is,
there is no such ruling. All
these folks who rant about the
corrupt courts upholding illegal
wire taps, denial of habeas
corpus, illegal property
seizures, 2nd Amendment
violations, and, probably,
Obamacare in the near future now
believe that the courts involved
in suppressing CtC are suddenly
paragons of virtue? The
outcomes of these cases should
be viewed as solid, trustworthy
reflections about the law,
despite the words of the
statutes, the Constitution,
Supreme Court rulings, and all
the evidence presented?
Please!!! I'm not that naive.]
-Doreen
PS. The
sentence is based on the fact
that Rosen decided that
Peter obstructed justice by
"perjuring" himself on the stand
and on theoretical intended tax
loss, though, to this day, no
tax has ever been assessed (I'm
sure everyone reads the
newsletters, but in case someone
missed it, see
http://www.losthorizons.com/PostCertsOfAssess.pdf and
read it carefully). Therefore,
the guidelines called for 27-33
months, Rosen sentenced the top
with 6 years probation. The
conviction and sentence are
being immediately appealed.”
Needless to say, one of the main
points of the big splash the DoJ
saw to it was made of this
sentencing event (I don’t know
how it got played elsewhere, but
as Doreen says, it had an
enormous amount of play in our
local big-city media market--
the entire top half of the front
page and a half a page further
in, with 150 pt. type headlines
in the only daily-delivery
papers here) is to defuse the
CtC community and the threat it
and it alone poses to the
pernicious evil that is the
misapplied “income” tax. This
must not be allowed to happen.
Please do all that you can to
help by posting, posting and
posting again, RIGHT NOW. Post
in every forum, state group,
newsgroup, etc..
Don’t let the perfect be the
enemy of the good, though, and
realize that speed is the
immediate thing. Depth can come
with follow-ups and more
follow-ups.
Thank you.
-Pete
P.S. Please share with me
anything you can think of as
“talking points” to add to this
list (or good renderings of
these), so that I can share them
with others. Don’t wait for my
approval before using anything
that strikes you as productive--
you have been selected to
receive this because I trust
your judgment and skills. But
please share as well.