The Sixth Circuit Concedes The "6020(b)" Point In A CtC-Related Ruling
My friends, I consider this to be an especially important article. Please read it through carefully, and then carefully consider each of its implications.
THIS SHOULDN'T BE NEWS, OF COURSE-- the appellate court has DONE wrong in regard to 6020(b)-- at least once, anyway, as part of the sustained statist campaign to discourage the spread of CtC's revelations about the tax by high-visibility assaults on me. That's the case we'll look at, and the one in which the court makes its concession. But the Sixth Circuit has never RULED wrong about the meaning and effect of this very important statute.
I previously shared the Circuit Court's acknowledgement of the CtC-revealed specialized meaning and effect of the term "includes" in federal tax law. As you will recall (or can review here) the court makes this admission by way of a very explicit and deliberate evasion, thereby acknowledging what it concedes it cannot dispute.
I mentioned as a postscript to that article on "includes" that the court had made the same concession on 6020(b), leaving it to the interested reader to follow-up and take in that similarly-significant judicial admission. However, I am now prompted by recent events to make a presentation on this important topic.
DURING DOREEN'S TRIAL, both DOJ "Tax Division" attorneys appearing as witnesses for the government did everything they could to dodge and "misunderstand" questions put to them about 6020(b) during cross-examination. This was unsurprising and barely worth noting, as these were the same two who also professed to not understand the nature of an affidavit, and claimed to be unfamiliar with any other section of tax law about which they were questioned. In this, the dissembling and mendacity were much as had been the case in the first trial.
But something new happened this time around, very much emphasizing the ignorance-tax-schemers' serious and well-founded fear of 6020(b). When Doreen began questioning one of those witnesses about the statute, a government prosecutor, Melissa Siskind stood to object to the question and the introduction of Doreen's related exhibit, which consisted of nothing but the verbatim text of the statute (along with that of 26 U.S.C. § 6065, which requires that such returns by signed under penalties of perjury).
Holding the verbatim text of 6020(b) in her hand, Siskind, without so much as a blush, declared to one and all that 6020(b) only applies when no return has been filed.Judge Roberts chimed in and said the same, and refused to allow the exhibit to go to the jury! See the transcript of these two declarations here.
Here's the actual mandate of the statute:
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.
Later, during Doreen's own direct testimony the exhibit was re-introduced and Doreen read the statute to the jury. Either because the cat was out of the bag anyway, or for whatever other reason, Roberts allowed its admission (over Siskind's repeated objection, this time on the ridiculous-- and perhaps unprecedented?-- argument that the exhibit need not be admitted now, because the jury had just heard its content).
As when outright lying about the statute's content earlier, the government attorneys struggled hard and stopped at nothing in their effort to suppress and evade this powerful bit of inconvenient law. This reminder of how frightened the "ignorance-tax" schemers are of 6020(b) reminded me of the Sixth Circuit's recent admission, and so I will address that subject in the depth I declined to afford it previously.
I'VE LONG HAD MATERIAL ON 6020(b) AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CtC COMMUNITY posted on this site (and it is discussed in CtC itself in 'About 1040s And Claiming Refunds', of course).
Briefly summarized, the simple existence of one or more "information returns" (IRs) is not enough to establish a government claim to the property (as tax) of anyone who has filed a return 1.) making his or her own assertions as to "income" received and the amount of tax owed, 2.) making his or her own claim to the return of withheld or paid-in amounts (if any), and 3.) including specific rebuttals of IRs to the contrary. In the face of such returns, IF the government has real reason to believe that the filing claimant was 1.) required to file a return, and 2.) filed a false, fraudulent (or, per the associated regs, frivolous) return, 6020(b) mandates a government-produced, sworn-signature return in order to establish a cognizable competing government claim to any tax allegedly owed.
It's as simple as this: A government contention that a filer's return is flawed in some fashion (even if true), and/or a government disinclination to honor a filer's claim, does not entitle the government to keep anyone's withheld amounts, or collect any others. A sworn assertion of "income" received and a formal claim of its own that a tax is owed must be made by a competent government official (and, if challenged, successfully defended) before any amount can be collected and deposited as tax.
Therefore, its failure to produce proper, sworn 6020(b) returns in any given case is a flat admission by the government that it has no actual grounds for concluding that a return was required (which constitutes an agreement that less than the exemption amount of "income" was received) or has no actual grounds for concluding that a filed return is false, fraudulent or frivolous (which amounts to the same agreement, in the case of most CtC-educated returns).
The government's failure to obey the 6020(b) mandate is a declaration that the government has no grounds on which to challenge a filed return, and is foregoing the making of any claim to taxes owed by that filer in regard to the period with which the filed return is concerned.
Or so I maintain...
Last December, the Sixth Circuit agreed with me.
Having been made incapable of evading the issue, the court has been forced to acknowledge-- even in a case with "Hendrickson" in the caption-- that the 6020(b) mandate is just as I outline above, and as explained in CtC. Hooray! About time!!
Of course, the court didn't just wave the white flag. Instead, the court did its very best to make its acknowledgement hard to see...
IN ORDER TO LAY BARE THE SIXTH CIRCUIT'S ADMISSION, it will be helpful to first take note of a basic legal principle articulated by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Gray v. Great American Recreation Association, Inc., 970 F.2d 1081 (2nd Circuit, 1992):
“‘The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests.’' Meier v. CIR, 199 F.2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952) (quoting 20 Am.Jur., Evidence §190, page 193).”
The Supreme Court put is this way in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976):
"[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ...: "Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character." 263 U.S. at 153-154. And just last Term, in Hale, supra, the Court recognized that "[f]ailure to contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . . if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question."
The Fifth Circuit cuts straight to the chase:
“Silence can ... be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . .” U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (5th Circuit, 1970).
To summarize this well-settled (and self-evident) legal principle: When a proposition is clearly stated and it is the duty of the respondent to address it, or would be in the respondent's interests to dispute or rebut it if possible, a failure to do so is an admission of the proposition. In the rules of evidence, this is known as "admission by silence".
A popular judicial version of "admission by silence" is the "straw-man" evasion, in which the proposition asserted is conveniently misunderstood as being something else which the court CAN dispute or rebut, and an adverse ruling is declared in the matter. What has REALLY happened is that the actual proposition has been met by silence, and thus, admitted to be correct.
NOW KEEPING IN MIND THE "ADMISSION BY SILENCE OR BY STRAW-MAN EVASION" PRINCIPLE, lelet's look at the Sixth Circuit's December, 2013 ruling concerning an argument hinging on the construction of 6020(b). Recognize as we go that there could be no case or occasion more demanding of a flat rebuttal to my construction of the statute IF such a rebuttal could be made...
Here's some background. The ruling was on a motion by which I make a jurisdictional challenge to my 2009 kangaroo-court conviction for allegedly not really believing my earnings don't qualify as "wages" when I said I did on my tax returns (the formal charge having been "fraud and false statements", defined as:
Willfully making and subscribing any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter
What I supposedly didn't really believe was that my earnings aren't "wages" ('cuz, you know, Nancy Edmunds and a W-2 creator said THEY think they are...)
My challenge, in relevant part, is over the government's failure to create an actual case or controversy in regard to the returns it alleged in its charges to be "false"; and I also argue that the failure of the government to demonstrate a good-faith belief in its charges is thereby a revelation of bad-faith, making its charges-- already known for other reasons to have been an almost certain fraud of another sort-- a fraud on the court, rendering the outcome in the case invalid.
HERE IS MY MOTION, in relevant part. Please don't be intimidated by the fact that this is a portion of a legal brief!
It IS a little long, and some of the supporting authority and requisite logic-chaining may seem a bit tedious. But as you will see, it is impossible to misunderstand.
(Click on the images below in sequence, or view as a .pdf here. Start at "C. The Court Has Been Without Jurisdiction...")
Now, because the government's response to my Motion in the district court anticipates the dodge to which the appellate court ultimately results, I'm going to share that here. You'll notice that the government cites a long list of cases purporting to dispute my construction.
However, all the government's cases-- every one-- are misrepresented. Here are the relevant pages from my reply, laying this out:
See these pages as a .pdf here, if you prefer.
As you see, every case cited by the government is both inapposite and in some cases deceptively misrepresented as well. As I note in my reply, the presentation of these cases (which are pretty nearly the total of all reported rulings on the subject of 6020(b) to that point) reveals that the government could find NO case disputing my construction or overcoming the authorities I cite in support of my construction, and had no valid argument to make against them.
The Sixth Circuit stayed directly in the government's groove in its denial of my motion on this issue, even after first improperly declaring that I was barred from raising the issue due to having not raised it before. This is not true, as a lack of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional issue, and as such, can be raised at any time. But this is not the point here, because despite its inapt procedural reference, the court goes on to pretend to address my argument anyway, and in doing so concedes the point. Here is its response to my argument:
Note the authority cited: Maggi, 1999 WL 96651. This is United States v. Maggi, No. 98-5570, 1999 WL 96651, (6th Cir., Feb 5, 1999).
Houston, there's a problem.
Maggi was... wait for it... a failure to file case! Just like the list of cases falsely cited by the government in its mendacious response to my motion, Maggi has nothing to do with my argument. What's more, Maggi has nothing to SAY even relevant to the appellate court's pretense-- the subject of 6020(b) NEVER COMES UP EVEN ONCE in the Maggi ruling, and Maggi made no argument involving the statute. Here is that ruling in its entirety.
THE STATEMENT BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN ITS RULING ON MY MOTION IS COMPLETELY INAPT, and deliberately so. It is not the least bit credible that the court even merely mistook my argument as related to anything in Maggi, because there is nothing whatever about 6020(b) in that ruling.
Plainly, the Sixth Circuit resorted to this sleazy pretense of citing Maggi as authority for disputing my argument BECAUSE IT HAD NO CHOICE. It does not dare actually attempt to dispute that argument because, like the US attorneys before it in their mendacious response to my motion, the appellate court cannot dispute it.
The circuit court couldn't come up with a single precedent from any other court disputing my construction of 6020(b) because there are none. It didn't even try to dispute that construction directly and de novo, because that construction cannot be disputed.
Instead of disputing my arguments, the court admits their correctness by default and by its cheap "straw-man" evasion.
[J]ust last Term, in Hale, supra, the Court recognized that "[f]ailure to contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . . if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question."
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)
AS I NOTED EARLIER, THERE COULD BE NO CASE more demanding of a rebuttal to CtC's teaching on the meaning and effect of 6020(b) if such a rebuttal could be made. The government devotes a huge body of resources and effort to trying to persuade those who don't yet know better that what CtC says about the law is wrong. A number of judges have done the same, spending both ink and moral capital issuing rulings intended to discourage and intimidate Americans who have learned what CtC teaches.
Thus, an opportunity to issue a flat-out circuit-court-level ruling squarely debunking what CtC teaches about 6020(b) as presented in my motion-- which is a very key element in the structure of the laws by which the tax is kept in conformity with its Constitutional limits-- would be seized on firmly, IF what CtC teaches about this COULD be debunked.
Instead, the court engages in this mendacious contrivance designed to make it APPEAR to have offered dispute, while actually NOT doing so.
In light of these considerations, and the manifest desire of the court to register opposition to my arguments at any cost, the court's failure to issue that debunking (or even attempt it) and its resort to not only a "straw-man" evasion, but a "straw-man" bereft of stuffing instead, is not merely a judicial affirmation of my arguments (and CtC). It is a RESOUNDING judicial affirmation of the correctness of my arguments and CtC, and all the more so for amounting to an "admission against interest" (however corrupt it is for the court to harbor an "interest" in defiance of the truth and the law).
The court, and those it serves, are just hoping no one will look past the "Denied" to discover what its decision really upholds.
Think about the implications of this admission of the correctness of CtC on this very significant issue. Recognize, thoroughly, that what CtC teaches about the law IS CORRECT. Think about the broader implications of a federal court feeling compelled to resort to evasions when faced with CtC's revelations about the tax and the law. Think about our responsibility as grown-up Americans to not let our rule of law vanish away by sitting idly while corruption does its dirty business.
THE ADMISSION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT of CtC's correctness on 6020(b) is gratifying, even though it occurs in the context of a contrivance by which the court denies my motion to vacate my bogus conviction on the very grounds the court admits to be valid. More, the admission is important-- but only if it gets used both to expose the corruption in the courts and to support the truth about the law. Doing both is easy.
CITE THIS CASE! Wherever appropriate, in administrative proceedings, in litigations, in newsgroups and forums! Here's some sample language:
"In Peter Hendrickson v. United States, No. 13-1630 (6th Cir. 2013), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledges by its deliberate evasion of Hendrickson's actual argument on the issue, and its careful erection of a "straw-man" to which it actually directed its ruling that 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) imposes a mandate on the federal government to create and subscribe returns on its own behalf in order to create a case or controversy against a return filed by another, and to establish its own claim to amounts allegedly collectable as tax. The government's failure to create such a return is a prima facie admission that any given filed return thus gone unchallenged is true and correct."
Invite any argument to the contrary, and then lay out the truth. Your legal argument concerning 6020(b) (and/or that involving any term in whose definition it is deployed) will be supported, and the corruption of the courts-- and of anyone arguing against you-- will be exposed.
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
-John Stuart Mill
P. S. If any court or agency has made admissions by silence or "straw-man" evasion to YOUR educated assertions, positions or propositions, and you haven't exposed and trumpeted them in every newsgroup, forum and local newspaper, you are watching softballs go by that you should be banging out of the park to change the game. Get BUSY!!
Here's an example to add to the one I discuss above: An IRS CDPH officer, or anyone else, declares something to the effect of, "Taxpayer argues that his wages are not income (yadda, yadda yadda)..." when what you REALLY said was that your earnings are not "wages" (and that it's the other side's burden to prove the contrary, if it can). This is a flat-out admission that not all earnings are "wages", and, by extension, that any earnings whose alleged "wage" status has been formally disputed must be proven to be in that special sub-class.
If your declarant believed the contrary to be true, and that all earnings ARE "wages" he she or it would have simply said that. NOT saying it when that is plainly the actual proposition in play, is an admission by silence. Substituting an inaccurate "straw-man" and declaring against it instead of against the actual proposition is a further, more deliberate and explicit admission.
ANALYZE any adverse stuff to which you have been subjected. WRITE IT UP!! USE IT!!
P. S. Those who are interested can see my entire motion to vacate here, the utterly mendacious government response to it here, and my reply to that response here. The appellate decision can be seen in its entirety here.