Quote Originally Posted by ths61 View Post
Yep, what I gleaned from the judgements is that they were more on procedural issues (he didn't play by their deposition rules) versus specific tax law infractions. The result was an intimidation response versus identifying specific law infractions. His requests for specifics were all denied.

I was not able to find any following docs pertaining to the punitive requests to the court using the case number. The audit trail appears to have gone cold there. I did find other defendant's documents that included his case number.

They were probably avoiding adding his data into record for fear it would be used by others as an establish a president.

He has posted the audio recordings of some of his telephone meetings. I listened to some briefly and he seemed to be quite detailed and cautious about the negotiation of the discovery phase. The Feds took some liberties that he was seeking redactions before signing. In short, the Fed docs were putting words in his mouth that were not his, nor his opinions or beliefs.
Whoa, I just took a look at the first 10 or so pages of Hansen's IRS DUE PROCESS MEETING HAND BOOK - no wonder the Fed's didn't want that into the record. It's massive. It's also seems very succinct and thoroughly researched. He presents the codes the IRS agent MUST adhere to, and also having the sign of penalty of perjury of their true legal name. And, the Feds would have to rebut / refute ALL of the case law he's sighted. Most importantly, and I'm definitely not an attorney, but hasn't some statute of limitations run it's course on this issue? It's been 9 yrs, yes?