From: hkhenson@my-deja.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal Subject: Re: Henson loses- again Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:09:20 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 89 Message-ID: <8tshl8$mbt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8tr1po02rms@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.170.6.222 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 02 20:09:20 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x64.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.170.6.222 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDhkhenson In article <8tr1po02rms@drn.newsguy.com>, Court_Watch <Court_Watch_member@newsguy.com> wrote: > H. KEITH HENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, snip > Furthermore, Henson lacked standing as a federaltaxpayer because the > first amended complaint failed to allege an injury resulting from > Congress's exercise of power under the taxing and spending clause. See > Flast v. Cohen (1968) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _____________________________ | H. KEITH HENSON, | No. 99-17038 Plaintiff-Appellant, | | D.C. No CV-98-21290-JW v. | | PETITION FOR INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | REHEARING Defendant-Appellee. | (EN BANC) ____________________________ | REASON: Material point of fact overlooked in decision. The first amended complaint alleged two independent grounds for standing, either of which would have permitted the case to go forward. Both were denied. The appeal affirmed on the two independent grounds, the first of which (remoteness of injuries by Scientology facilitated by the IRS) plaintiff concedes. However, a material fact was overlooked in rejecting on the second grounds: "Furthermore, Henson lacked standing as a federal taxpayer because the first amended complaint failed to allege an injury resulting from Congress's exercise of power under the taxing and spending clause." The court made a plain error, overlooking page 14, starting at line 7 of the first amended complaint: "Revenue Ruling 93-73 provides direct benefits to the members of the Church of Scientology, and Federal taxpayers are compelled [emphasis added] to subsidize Scientology education courses that may be "contrary to their consciences." The plaintiff is identified as a "Federal taxpayer" on page 3, line 6 of the first amended complaint. Plaintiff being compelled in any dollar amount to subsidize Scientology education courses contrary to my conscience is no less of an injury to me than the injury an Orthodox Jew would feel if he were compelled by the government to eat pork. The above injury flows from Congress's exercise of power under the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution because Congressdelegated taxing authority to the IRS in the Revenue code under that power. Revenue Ruling 93-73 is explicitly connected in the first amended complaint to Congress's power and to a violation of the Establishment clause (which limits taxing and spending powers) on page 13 line 1: "Revenue Ruling 93-73 advances Scientology by allowing its members to deduct as charitable contributions payments made to the Church in quid pro quo transactions which are denied to other religions under Section 170." [of the Revenue Code] En Banc considerations are to be requested only on certain grounds such as "the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance." Exhibit A, an article from the September 4, 2000 issue of Forbes magazine shows that a member of another faith was denied equal treatment by the IRS on religious grounds (not being a Scientologist) and that the scale of tax write-offs (if equal treatment were not denied) exceeds ten billion dollars per year. Respectfully submitted, H. Keith Henson, pro se September 5, 2000 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. [Editorial note: The September 5, 2000 date in this Usenet posting was incorrect, but corrected before filing.]