Tyranny from the IRS

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by vienna

Well, it's gone from unfounded assertion to defensive insults in less than 5 posts. That may be a record for Bubbles...

The people in question have brought down this misery on themselves. By virtue of their basically turning the "plight" into a business (selling books, etc), they are no better than the 'snake oil' salesmen who pitch get rich quick scheme in infomercials on late night TV. They seek to profit from being "martyrs". The lowest of the low...

If you really looked them up, and, given your self-purported legal acumen and depth of knowledge, you would have found they goaded the government into action; the IRS did not spontaneously go knocking on their door. If you jaywalk in front of a cop, expect to get a ticket...


<O>

NO, you started the insults with your "witty sarcasm" . They brought this on themselves? Man you are just a tool for the government eh? They are tax protesters, so what? They see something is wrong and stand up to it and so what if they write books or whatever, this fight requires money and writing a book etc is a way to spread the message.The government is picking on them because of their views, especially the wife.She is refusing to sign a form because is saying it's not true, they are trying to force her, she is standing strong and the government hates it.The Judge even offered a reasonable compromise but the tyrannical IRS said no.Fact is, they want her in prison because she dares to stand up. Sad part is, people, myself included at this point in my life, do not have the guts to do what these people are doing.Although my fight may begin when I refuse to purchase health insurance, especially via the government's exchanges until I can really afford it. We shall see what happens, but wake up, stop being part of the problem.

If you 'protest' by breaking laws, you can expect to be prosecuted for breaking laws. Not that 'protester' is necessarily the word I'd use to describe someone who resorts to firebombing...

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

If you 'protest' by breaking laws, you can expect to be prosecuted for breaking laws. Not that 'protester' is necessarily the word I'd use to describe someone who resorts to firebombing...

An unjust law is no law at all.Everything aside, they are focusing on his wife not being reasonable because they want her in prison, to make a point, to show their power.This is tyranny, plain and simple.

[Jimbuna]

I was always under the impression that a law, whether thought to be good or bad by sections of the community was a law, provided it was passed into being by the relevant authority.

Is this thread going to turn into this?

[Jimbuna]

Nope.

[vienna]

Is this thread going to turn into this?

Why are you using future tense?...


<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

The guvernment's view...

MICHIGAN WOMAN ARRESTED FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

WASHINGTON – Doreen Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., was arrested today following an indictment by a federal grand jury for criminal contempt, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced.

Hendrickson and her husband, Peter Hendrickson, filed tax returns for 2002 and 2003 on which they claimed more than $20,000 in fraudulent tax refunds. These returns were based on the frivolous argument set forth in Peter Hendrickson's book, Cracking the Code, that only federal, state and local government employees are liable for the payment of income taxes. In May 2007, as part of a lawsuit against the Hendricksons filed by the department's Tax Division, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds in Detroit entered a permanent injunction that barred the Hendricksons from filing additional false tax returns. Judge Edmunds also ordered the Hendricksons to file amended 2002 and 2003 returns. According to the indictment, Doreen Hendrickson violated this injunction by failing to file amended 2002 and 2003 tax returns and by filing a false 2008 tax return that was based on the arguments in her husband's book.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

This case was investigated and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Melissa S. Siskind and Jeffrey B. Bender of the Tax Division, with the assistance of IRS-Criminal Investigation.

http://www.justice.gov/tax/2013/txdv13657.htm

nothing to see here folks, move along...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Who cares if they are tax protesters? Government does not have the right to do what they are doing, especially to her in this case.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

They are tax protesters, so what? They see something is wrong and stand up to it and so what if they write books or whatever, this fight requires money and writing a book etc is a way to spread the message.

The bottom line is simple. They lied on the tax form. They claimed zero income, but they actually made considerably more than zero. That is indeed a crime.

The government is picking on them because of their views, especially the wife.She is refusing to sign a form because is saying it's not true, they are trying to force her, she is standing strong and the government hates it.

If she signs the form she's guilty of perjury, because she claimed zero income, which is a lie. The law requires that the form be signed. The law requires that if you are self-employed and make more than $400 you must file a return. She is in the process of breaking the law. How complicated is that?

I'm aware that the IRS has pulled some pretty shady stuff, and continues to do so. This may be one of those cases. It doesn't necessarily look like it though. Protesting a law is fine. Doing so by breaking it is not.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

An unjust law is no law at all.

So get it changed. I believe the Federal Income Tax to be an unjust law, but it's there and the only way to fix it is to get it repealed.

Everything aside, they are focusing on his wife not being reasonable because they want her in prison, to make a point, to show their power.This is tyranny, plain and simple.

That's possibly true. It's doubtful that it's the whole IRS doing it, simply because there would have to be a stated policy showing up somewhere, and sooner or later an IRS employee would expose it. More likely is that it's a self-important IRS official trying to prove something. More likely still is that these people are breaking the law, and the law must be enforced or else it's, as you say, no law at all.

[vienna]

The real problem is people not knowing which fights to pick. If you defend a charlatan, you are not only perpetuating their fraud, you are damaging the very argument you wish to make. There are a great many other persons who are truly being persecuted by various government entities, but, unless some politacally or personal-gain motivated individual or group, say, like the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world, rush to their "defense", no one ever really raise a hand to help them, unless it's something like the ACLU or other "liberal" group...

When I did my Google search, I just picked two out of the top five hits. I did skim over the others, but I felt those two were a good example of my point. They are not being persecuted because of their "outspoken opposition"; they plain and simple violated the law. As a "future barrister", you should understand the distinction. If you don't like the law change it or change those who make the law...

Additional problems arise from those who make broad, sweeping assertions without proper foundation, reasoning, or researched knowledge...

By the way, thank you for noting my wit. Jealous, much? I will see if there is a "witless protection" program avilable for you...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by vienna

The real problem is people not knowing which fights to pick. If you defend a charlatan, you are not only perpetuating their fraud, you are damaging the very argument you wish to make. There are a great many other persons who are truly being persecuted by various government entities, but, unless some politacally or personal-gain motivated individual or group, say, like the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world, rush to their "defense", no one ever really raise a hand to help them, unless it's something like the ACLU or other "liberal" group...

When I did my Google search, I just picked two out of the top five hits. I did skim over the others, but I felt those two were a good example of my point. They are not being persecuted because of their "outspoken opposition"; they plain and simple violated the law. As a "future barrister", you should understand the distinction. If you don't like the law change it or change those who make the law...

Additional problems arise from those who make broad, sweeping assertions without proper foundation, reasoning, or researched knowledge...

By the way, thank you for noting my wit. Jealous, much? I will see if there is a "witless protection" program avilable for you...


<O>

Who cares if they violated the law? The laws are unjust, an unjust law is no law at all.The government is picking on the wife now to prove a point, even the judge made a reasonable compromise but the government, in typical tyrannical fashion said no, because they want these people to suffer.

I looked them up and what I see are two people who have been fighting the good fight against an oppressive government.Writing a book etc is how you spread the word and so what if make some money off of it, it's needed to carry on this battle.

Yes, I realize you move to change the law or those who make them but it does not always work.How you change the law iswith a movement and if the law is so unjust, some may choose not to obey it in the meantime to draw attention to the subject.There is a lot of power behind keeping the 16th amendment as is and it's called the IRS.The IRS is a weapon that few in power would want to give up.

The woman owes them no money, she is simply refusing to sign a form and allow them to force her to submit to their will.This is tyrannical behavior would expect from Russia etc, not the US, but it is commonplace sadly.Thanks to people like you, who think it is acceptable.

FYI, the ACLU geneally only helps you if you are poor, non white, or fighting something religious, unless you are a muslim who tried to attack the US.

Jealous? lol right.No, just your "wit" is deflection, because you think trying to be sarcastic makes you funny and original, but it does not.You are just another hack trying to tow the government line because it makes you feel good about yourself.Also, it's personal because I made the post.Grow up, make an argument or SHUT UP. Personal insults, veiled or overt are not called for.

[vienna]

Pathetic, Bubbles, just plain pathetic...


<O>

[vienna]

FYI, the ACLU geneally only helps you if you are poor, non white, or fighting something religious, unless you are a muslim who tried to attack the US.

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/cit...u-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by vienna

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/cit...u-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

Do you even live here? I have real world experience with the ACLU.Generally speaking, they only handle cases involving non whites etc Now, is that their official policy? No but is it generally what they do? Yes. Example, I once met with the local director in my home town who refused to lift a finger to help a white, middle class guy facing some issues with the local police.Maybe a year later, same type of case, it was all over local news, black client and ACLU was helping him.This repeats itself all over the country.Do they help white people sometimes? Yes but generally ? no, unless it has do with religion. Just how it is and is one reason that organization is so reviled by many.The name and it's purpose sounds great, but the left wing loons who run the show there have ruined it, then again if I recall the founder was a communist, so makes sense.Thin they would take up the case of a tax protester? Doubt it, unless they were black, but maybe not even then.

[vienna]

Still pathetic...


<O>