Hendrickson wants his followers to make videos

[Quixote]

FOILED AGAIN! It looks like Pete won't have much leverage with the government. No one is going to make a video for him:

Pete.. we probably haven't responded because we don't know how to make a video? And maybe we feel this country is on the edge of marshall law and we don't want to be the first in the new FEMA camps?

I agree with Victoria. Making video's are not as easy as they say, plus by the sounds and looks of things everyone is busy writing letters. Frustration levels are not hidden from the camera's eye.

Yep, the reasons are:

• Don't know how (apparently Pete hasn't written a book called "Cracking the Webcam")
• Doesn't want to call any undue attention to oneself and end up on the IRS radar as a CtCer (and threw in a little end-of-the-country paranoia to cover up the real motivation)
• Too busy pissing into the wind to help someone else piss into the wind.
• Testimonial would suck because everyone can see "It doesn't work" written on the person's face.

So the Lostheads are less technically competent than Danny the Dogwalker, Larkin Rose, and the thousands of teenagers dancing on YouTube.

[webhick]

So the Lostheads are less technically competent than Danny the Dogwalker, Larkin Rose, and the thousands of teenagers dancing on YouTube.

I think the difference here is summed up in two words: opposable thumbs.

[Famspear]

Here's a video from the PeterMeister I found on youtube:

http://nl.youtube.com/user/HobieOneKinobie

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

So the Lostheads are less technically competent than Danny the Dogwalker, Larkin Rose, and the thousands of teenagers dancing on YouTube.

I think the difference here is summed up in two words: opposable thumbs.

Bipedal locomotion.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Don't tell them, but even if they don't identify themselves on camera, Google/YouTube will be more than happy to comply with a removal request from the US Attorney's office and turn over their IP source address in the process. Promotion of illegal activity violates the TOS.

IMHO, you can rant and rave against the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Illuminati and darn near anything but when you suggest that other people act illegally on those beliefs all your 'hard work' making a video will be wasted.

Edit: I'm wondering if such a 'testimonial' video pretty much closes the door for a 'victim' of his scheme to file a civil case against him? Nah - Pete's not that clever.

[Prof]

Victoria wrote:
Pete.. we probably haven't responded because we don't know how to make a video? And maybe we feel this country is on the edge of marshall law and we don't want to be the first in the new FEMA camps?

Who is the marshall who imposes marshall law? Marshall Dillon? Is Marshall law part of the Marshall Plan?



See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law .

[LPC]

Don't tell them, but even if they don't identify themselves on camera, Google/YouTube will be more than happy to comply with a removal request from the US Attorney's office and turn over their IP source address in the process. Promotion of illegal activity violates the TOS.

IMHO, you can rant and rave against the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Illuminati and darn near anything but when you suggest that other people act illegally on those beliefs all your 'hard work' making a video will be wasted.

Could the making of a video be considered an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States?

As a wise judge once wrote:

“The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.”

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).

In this context, "act on them" includes not only the act of filing of false returns (or willfully failing to file returns) but also the acts of aiding, counseling, or encouraging others to file false returns.

[Imalawman]

It just comes to mind, that if Petey’s sheep do all make videos, just how much easier it will be to track them down when it comes time for their own trials for failure to file and fraud, and what really good prosecution evidence the videos will make.

None of them are vulnerable to failure to file actions since they all filed returns -- fraudulent returns, but valid returns.

If you look at their discussions of the various IRS letters they've received and the postings on Pete's victory wall, they are already in deep doodoo from an administrative standpoint.

They've received notices of intent to levy, $5,000 frivolous filing penalties, adverse CDP decisions, etc.

In all lkelihood, the only reason the government isn't pursuing refund recovery lawsuits against all of them is that there are too many for DoJ to deal with.

However, as soon as the first one or two are hauled up on criminal charges, there will be a mass exodus from Pete's camp. The majority of them will run to the next available guru (Peymon, are you ready for a vast influx of new business?) while the few who have some functioning brain cells left will bite the bullet and get themselves back into the system.

It would be great if CTC people did this, I know for a fact that the agency I represent would send each person a nice letter informing them of their new liability. We are now more aggressive with CTC filers, but they've been fading lately. 2008 was, so far, a rather quiet year.