Hendrickson Indicted II

[The Observer]

I would love to know where and under what circumstances the arrest took place, and what (if anything) the Blowhardmeister had to say to the arresting officer.

Something about wages, employees and income while making the quotation mark sign with his fingers. Oh, and also "DIDN'T YOU READ MY BOOK?"

I am pretty sure the conversation started off with Pete saying, "You can't arrest me - DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!"

[webhick]

The LH forum is now experiencing technical difficulties per the phpbb error message. It's a relatively simple fix but when you couple this with the recent connection error messages...LH may be going dark soon and I don't think that Pete or the government will have anything to do with it.

[Famspear]

The LH forum is now experiencing technical difficulties per the phpbb error message. It's a relatively simple fix but when you couple this with the recent connection error messages...LH may be going dark soon and I don't think that Pete or the government will have anything to do with it.

I wasn't gonna say anything, although I have not been able to get in there this morning (I think it may have been down late last night as well).

Webhick, I don't want to hijack the thread, but are we looking at a potential hard drive crash over there, or something like that? (I'm not very computer-savvy.) What usually causes this kind of problem? (Or is it just that Pete, his web site, and his followers are being punished by God because they're bad people?)

[ASITStands]

I'll let 'webhick' answer the PHP question, but the Lost Horizons site is still running.

That tells me it's not a failed disk.

It's an SQL error. It could be related to a swap file but I suspect it's a scripting problem.

Line 189 in a file called 'session.php'

Someone edited the file possibly to change permissions. 'webhick' can tell you why.

[Nikki]

The LH forum is now experiencing technical difficulties per the phpbb error message. It's a relatively simple fix but when you couple this with the recent connection error messages...LH may be going dark soon and I don't think that Pete or the government will have anything to do with it.

I wasn't gonna say anything, although I have not been able to get in there this morning (I think it may have been down late last night as well).

Webhick, I don't want to hijack the thread, but are we looking at a potential hard drive crash over there, or something like that? (I'm not very computer-savvy.) What usually causes this kind of problem? (Or is it just that Pete, his web site, and his followers are being punished by God because they're bad people?)

The government is sucking all the data from the site, leaving a non-responsive black hole.

[webhick]

are we looking at a potential hard drive crash over there, or something like that? (I'm not very computer-savvy.)

I'll let 'webhick' answer the PHP question, but the Lost Horizons site is still running.

That tells me it's not a failed disk.

If I'm right, the disk hasn't failed yet. But it might be that gray area between healthy and dead. The sessions table is written to/read each time someone visits the forum, which makes it an early indicator of a hard drive problem. The more people try to use the site, the faster the drive will approach the point of no return.

Recall what happened here several months back. We got a sessions table problem (not the same one, but similar), then a user table problem, then the site went down due to a dead disk.

What usually causes this kind of problem? (Or is it just that Pete, his web site, and his followers are being punished by God because they're bad people?)

Use. Hard drives can't read and write forever. That's why I tell people that when you're experiencing slowdown on a computer 5+ years old, test the hard drive health before proceeding to run scans (anti-virus, spyware, etc) which will cause it to lose data faster, in the event of a failure. After which point, the only hope you have is to use the freezer technique. Of course, in Pete's case, if he didn't have backups he can always ask the DOJ for theirs.

[Famspear]

If I'm right, the disk hasn't failed yet. But it might be that gray area between healthy and dead. The sessions table is written to/read each time someone visits the forum, which makes it an early indicator of a hard drive problem. The more people try to use the site, the faster the drive will approach the point of no return.

Gee willikers, in that case, I'll just keep accessing the losthorizons forum every 30 seconds from now 'til....

Just kidding.

. . . .Of course, in Pete's case, if he didn't have backups he can always ask the DOJ for theirs.

Ouch!!

[Gregg]

Or could it be.....SATAN!!

nope, I got's an alibi

[gezco]

This is indeed good news. I was starting to loose faith in the system. This guy has been promoting this garbage for far too long. I hope the DOJ nails this guy to the wall. I’m hoping he gets sent to Leavenworth.

[Famspear]

The tax forum at losthorizons appears to be back up (it's about 11:00 pm Central time, Friday, Nov. 21, 2008). It was down almost all day long.

[Famspear]

Commentary on PeterEricBlowhardMeister's latest problems from the blogosphere, this from a lawyer named James Ostrowski, on 21 Nov. 2008:

One of the enduring features of the tax protest movement is that when one school of thought gets shot down, the movement simply says, Oh, that guy was wrong but so and so is right. They never give up on the basic flawed premise that taxation can be fought in the government courts funded by the same taxes they want to argue out of existence.

So it was that one of my tax protester friends said to me two years ago, yeah so and so (thrown in jail for tax fraud) was wrong but Peter Hendrickson and his book Cracking the Code really has it nailed.

I scanned his book and it made little sense to me and what I could understand I knew to be wrong.

Then, I had it out with his posse on this site and convinced none of them.

Finally, I found out that he himself had lost his own civil case! None of his posse bothered to tell me that even though they were contesting my grand thesis which goes: no tax protester has ever won a legal ruling on the merits from a federal court in 35 years, the entire life of the movement.

Anyway, I found out today the sad news that Mr. Hendrickson has been indicted.

I wish him well but even more fervently hope that the entire tax protest movement would convert to more productive ventures.

Here’s a mission for them right now. The tax revolt convoy to Albany to end the state gas tax!

(bolding is in the original)

http://blog.jimostrowski.com/?p=2063

[gezco]

We really should start a Peter Hendrickson jail time pool. I call 6 years.

[funwithsafety]

Before 1940 only 4% of Americans paid the so-called income tax - they were all Federal employees or contractors. Prior to World War II, no one outside the government paid income tax; the people were, and understood themselves to be, immune from that tax. During WWII, Congress passed the Victory Tax (56 Stat. 884) to impose an income tax on every individual in The United States of America, something which had not been done by any previous income tax act.

The Victory Tax was repealed by section 6 of Income Tax Act of 1944, which in amending the I.R.C. includes the states of the union in the terms "certain foreign countries" (section 6 (b)(3)) and "foreign countries and possessions of the United States" (section 6 (b)(4)). This restored the scope of income taxation to what it had been prior to the Victory Tax, as not including individuals in the states of the union. Those taxed under I.R.C. 211(a) must then be those living in a state of the union and working for government or one of its agencies - drawing income from "sources within the United States".

But because Congress failed to make it generally known that the Victory Tax was no longer in effect, people did not know to discontinue the withholding begun for the Victory Tax. One was then considered as being a volunteer in paying income tax.

The scope of the I.R.C. never targeted all individuals in the union. Only for a brief period, and under war powers, were all individuals made subject to taxation of income. The repeal of the Victory Tax means the scope of what is taxed was restored to its original intent, and individuals in the states of the union do not have to pay taxes on their incomes. And as the Victory Tax was the only act to have levied any such tax, the scope of taxation has never again expanded to include the whole of The United States of America.

Many positions based on an incomplete understanding of the "income" tax have
been litigated over the years, and some of those positions have aspects which
make them appear to have a superficial resemblance to what is presented here.
However, even a cursory reading of most of the cases included in these IRS
presentations will make it clear (show) that they are off-point to the knowledge
provided here. Here is a blunt and obvious example:

"Petitioner's assertion that wages are not income is absurd!" Of course it is absurd. "Wages" certainly ARE "income", and we would not say any different, knowing that in the context of such a trial, the only "wages" that will be spoken of are those defined at 3401(a) and 3121(a) of 26 USC. The court is not referring to 'earnings', or 'pay', only the custom defined legal term "wages", that has a unique custom meaning in the tax laws. But the reader is, of course, being invited to misunderstand this distinction...

Most of the remainder of these cases will be along the same lines, each taxing to
a greater or lesser degree the reader's ability to remember these key words as they are misrepresented as to their statutory definitions by confusing their sometimes complex meanings, application, and combination with everyday common terms.

(Sometimes the only way to recognize the misdirection in any given ruling in
these presentations is to read the whole case.)

A few of these presented rulings will simply be more-or-less outright wrong. One
must be mindful that a court is free to rule in near-total defiance of the actual
words and meaning of the law if one or both of the litigants fail to guide its
reasoning by an informed presentation of a case.

Further, even when a court is not taking advantage of a litigant's ignorance,
judges are not gods. One of the reasons we write our laws down is that judges
often make incorrect rulings. The next guy going into court on the same cause is
equipped and entitled, under our legal system, to rely on the words of the law,
not some Judge's latest ruling (although the IRS will cite that ruling if it serves the
government's purposes).

Consequently, the ability of the IRS to gather up a few cases which it tries to
construe as supporting its favored misunderstanding of the law is immaterial.
This is particularly true as regards to the "words of art" issues on which we are
focusing here. Let's look at the mechanism, 26 USC 7701(c): “Includes and
including: The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined,” is key to virtually all of the "words of
art" in the law with which these cases are concerned, "wages", "employee",
"employer", "trade or business", etc.

No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court reminds
us to refrain from reading anything into a statute when Congress has
left it out:

" 'Where Congress includes particular language in one section
of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed
that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion or exclusion.' " Russello v United States, 464 US 16,
23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) {Quoting United States
v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA 1972)}

As previously noted, some of the key definitions upon which the
broadest misapplication of the law are based (regarding “wages”, in
this example) involve the custom legal meaning of "TERMS" like
“employee”, “employer” and “United States” as used in the law and
reproduced in the code (all of which we will discuss in detail below).
These sections read as follows:

3401(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the "TERM" ''employee'' includes
an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a
State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more
of the foregoing. The "TERM" ''employee'' also includes an
officer of a corporation.
3401(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the "TERM" ''employer'' means
the person for whom an individual performs or performed any
service, of whatever nature, as the employee [as defined
above] of such person…
and:
3121(e)(2) United States
The "TERM" ''United States'' when used in a geographical
sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.


Now, keeping in mind the declaration by the Supreme Court in
Russello and your logical analysis, look at the following definitions in
the U.S code which are not relied upon to mislead (at least not for the
same purposes or in the same way as their counterparts which are the
subjects of this discussion), and recognize that when Congress
means to include the private sector it clearly says so:
Title 26 Subtitle C, Chapter 21, Subchapter C, Section 3121:
(FICA Income Tax) (NOTE: application of this tax is based upon
citizenship and residency, not on being an "employee" as such)
Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the "TERM" ''employee'' means -
(1) any officer of a corporation; or
(2) any individual who, under the usual common law rules
applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship,
has the status of an employee;
and,
Title 26, Subtitle D, Chapter 38, Subchapter A, Sec. 4612.
[Petroleum Tax] For purposes of this subchapter-
(4) United States
In general
The "TERM" ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any
possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
and also,
Title 20, Chapter 69, Section 6103 (Education)
As used in this chapter:
(8) Employer- The "TERM" "employer" includes both public
and private employers.

Even if you were to be extraordinarily generous in your interpretation
of 7701(c)’s definition of “includes and including” and treat its
meaning as being the same as the old regulatory clarification to which
we previously referred, (and which, by the way, is still in use in the
regulations for Title 27, at 27 CFR 72.11):

Meaning of Terms: The terms “includes and including” do not
exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.

The best that could be claimed in favor of the government’s preferred
characterization of our key "TERMs" is that “employee” in Section
3401 be understood to include other federal workers whose
descriptions are not specifically listed (and “employer” the agencies
for which they work); and that “United States” in 3121 be understood
to include other federal territories and possessions similarly left off the
enumerated list.

Though it is irrelevant to logical analysis of section 7701(c) (and the
other sections which its definition applies) -- except to underscore its
meaninglessness -- saying that something shall not be deemed to be
excluded does not mean that it must or should be deemed to be
included, regardless of how it is defined or classified, or whether
necessary referents are provided. After all, what it DOESN'T say is,
“Includes and including: The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when
used in a definition contained in this title shall be construed as
expanding the class represented by the common meaning of the word
defined with the addition of the explicitly listed items”. If it could have
done so without having the scheme promptly ruled unconstitutional for
claiming its provisions apply to private-sector activities, Congress
could have cleared up a lot of confusion long ago. Because Congress
did not must be given proper significance. As the United States
Supreme Court observes:

"The construction of a statute by those charged with its
execution should be followed unless there are compelling
indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has
refused to alter the administrative construction, and such
deference is particularly appropriate where an agency's
interpretation involves issues of considerable public
controversy and Congress has not acted to correct any
misperception of its statutory objectives." CBS, INC. v FCC, 453
US 367 (1981)

The existing language has been on the books for more than 64 years
and Congress has revised the code a few hundred times during that
period.

The IRS has offered a ridiculous “supporting explanation" of all this to the effect that the use of "includes xx" in key places in the code is because of doubts at one time as to whether public-sector entities were covered by the IRC. This proposition might have a little hang time if the relevant references were found in an addendum or supplement (and if it could be credibly asserted that anyone would otherwise have doubted that, for instance, the guy sorting mail at the
Senate Office Building is an employee within the common meaning of the word), but not when they constitute the sole definition of the term. There is no other list to which the public-sector references can be added; they ARE the list, and they have been since 1862. (The IRS doesn’t attempt to explain why, if what it suggests is true, Congress didn’t spare us our doubts and simply add one little section applying to the whole code saying, "Public sector workers, officials and
organizations are to be considered subject to the requirements of this
title in the same fashion as are private citizens and organizations.".)"

A few more observations by the United States Supreme Court:

· “where general words [such as the provisions of 7701(c)]
follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general
words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature
to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words”
Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)
· “Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term
follows a specific one, the general term should be understood
as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific
enumeration.” Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers,
499 US 117 (1991)
· “…a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of
noscitura sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to
one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its
accompanying words, thus giving “unintended breadth to the
Acts of Congress.” Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 US 303,
307 (1961)” Gustafon v. Alloyd Co. (93-404), 513 US 561
(1995)
· "When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon
of statutory construction -- that courts must presume that a
legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a
statute what it says there -- is also the last, and judicial inquiry
is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US
249 (1992)

[Nikki]

Eeeewwww Major KoolAid spill

Tell us, funwithsafetytroll, will your opinions remain the same when Pete is convicted of the criminal charges? Whar about when he loses his final civil suit and has to pay all the back taxes plus penalties plus interest? How about when all your fellow true believers have to go into hock for life to pay all those $5,000 frivolous filing penalties?

Are you going to keep singing the same song, or are you just going to move on to another guru?

[funwithsafety]

Eeeewwww Major KoolAid spill

Tell us, funwithsafetytroll, will your opinions remain the same when Pete is convicted of the criminal charges? Whar about when he loses his final civil suit and has to pay all the back taxes plus penalties plus interest? How about when all your fellow true believers have to go into hock for life to pay all those $5,000 frivolous filing penalties?

Are you going to keep singing the same song, or are you just going to move on to another guru?

Are you as ugly as you are mean?

[Trippy]

We really should start a Peter Hendrickson jail time pool. I call 6 years.

I call 8.

Anyone else?

[Nikki]

Eeeewwww Major KoolAid spill

Tell us, funwithsafetytroll, will your opinions remain the same when Pete is convicted of the criminal charges? Whar about when he loses his final civil suit and has to pay all the back taxes plus penalties plus interest? How about when all your fellow true believers have to go into hock for life to pay all those $5,000 frivolous filing penalties?

Are you going to keep singing the same song, or are you just going to move on to another guru?

Are you as ugly as you are mean?

Either answer the questions, or go back and play with your fellow true-believers.

You came here of your own accord. You are now dealing with adults who have sufficient brain cells to see through all of Pete's illogic. Either play by the rules here, or get your chain pulled.

You made some exceptionally outlandish assertions. Be prepared to support them.

Now, answer the questions.

[LPC]

Are you as ugly as you are mean?

We don't consider the truth to be "mean."

If you find the truth to be painful, that's your problem and not ours.

[LPC]

Before 1940 only 4% of Americans paid the so-called income tax - they were all Federal employees or contractors.

Well, that's wrong.

For example, in Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the imposition of the federal income tax on Mr. Earl's earnings as a lawyer in California and on his salary of an officer of the Great Western Power Company.

[Paul]

Thank you, Mr. Evans. I got as far as that obvious lie before deciding to stop reading that nonsense and simply respond to the fact that the whole post rests on a false premise. But you saved me the effort.