Hendrickson's Reply Brief

[ASITStands]

The part Hendrickson found offensive was simple logic.

You can't wind up with "net income" if you don't start with "gross income." Duh!

[Famspear]

Over at losthorizons.com, diller72 writes:

Touche, admin!

Personally, I've been pretty certain for at least six months that IMFResearch represents a more sophisticated and subtle form of LH Forum malefaction than posed by typical frontal assault trolls and overtly derisive Quatloosers. My residual uncertainty lies solely in whether it would be more appropriate to compare him/her with Dave von Kleist (a witting and proactive agent of disinformation brandishing both chutzpah and self-initiative) or to Jim Fetzer (perhaps merely a well-meaning dupe manipulated by others via his overactive ego) regarding their hamstringing roles in the 9-11 Truth movement. Maybe the answer congeals around how the bills of IMFResearch get paid while he/she tirelessly devotes so many hours per week for months on end toward 'helpfully' brewing fear of the IRS, uncertainty about the CtC message and doubt about PH's research conclusions on this forum. And all without proffering any IMF-related services or soliciting any IMF-related custom within a marketplace chock full of self-selected potential clients... Go figure.

Heaven forbid that anyone should brew uncertainty about the CtC message and doubt about Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendickson's research conclusions in the losthorizons forum! What a naughty thing to do!

After all, as the god and savior of America himself has stated:

Any "theory" which is in conflict in any way with what is taught in CtC [Cracking the Code] is simply wrong, and doesn't merit a single line of text in its defense or a moment's attention from anyone.

-- Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson

[Nikki]

It appears Hendrickson finally banned IMFResearch.

He got too close to the truth it appears.

Or too far away from the "lie".

At LoserHeads

IMFResearch, you are expected to have actually read CtC (and, optimally, the supplemental material I post every week on losthorizons.com) in order to be participating in this forum.

Your last several posts in this thread make clear that you have not done so.

Of particular note are your comments that, "There can be no "net income," or "taxable income," without there first being "income."

If you contend that which is called "wages" is not in fact "income" [by reason of not being "statutory wages"], you can never arrive at "net income" or "taxable income"

And, to exclude the possibility the Commissioner might question your determination of "the amount of annual income liable to be assessed" simply overlooks the scope of examination.

It makes of none effect the statutory basis of deficiency procedures, including those relating to false and fraudulent returns," (as well as your ridiculous contention about "civil fraud", which suggests that you don't know the meaning of "fraud" and/or are unable to distinguish a CtC-educated filing from others, are misreading what you refer to as "workpapers", or are the troll my moderators long ago suggested, and are offering deliberate misrepresentations accordingly-- something I continue to feel is probably not true).

When you have done that reading, your renewed participation will be welcome.

CtC-educated?

[Joey Smith]

IMFResearch's problem was that he spoke the truth: CtC is all about fraud, i.e., filing blatantly fraudulent returns and then justifying them on the basis that they were paid.

CtC is no different than passing a hot check, and then claiming that it was a good check because the bank paid it.

As we all know, there is not the slightest shred of technical support for the mail bomber's position, and indeed every court that has ever considered a CtC argument has thoroughly shot it down and the IRS has made clear that it considers CtC to be flatly wrong (I'm sure that DOJ-TAX considers CtC to be criminal, but we will see that very shortly).

[LPC]

CtC is no different than passing a hot check, and then claiming that it was a good check because the bank paid it.

Good analogy.

[LPC]

IMFResearch, you are expected to have actually read CtC (and, optimally, the supplemental material I post every week on losthorizons.com) in order to be participating in this forum.

Your last several posts in this thread make clear that you have not done so.

Of particular note are your comments that, "There can be no "net income," or "taxable income," without there first being "income."

If you contend that which is called "wages" is not in fact "income" [by reason of not being "statutory wages"], you can never arrive at "net income" or "taxable income"

And, to exclude the possibility the Commissioner might question your determination of "the amount of annual income liable to be assessed" simply overlooks the scope of examination.

It makes of none effect the statutory basis of deficiency procedures, including those relating to false and fraudulent returns," (as well as your ridiculous contention about "civil fraud", which suggests that you don't know the meaning of "fraud" and/or are unable to distinguish a CtC-educated filing from others, are misreading what you refer to as "workpapers", or are the troll my moderators long ago suggested, and are offering deliberate misrepresentations accordingly-- something I continue to feel is probably not true).

When you have done that reading, your renewed participation will be welcome.

CtC-educated? :roll:

You've actually improved the coherence of "admin" by breaking up his run-on paragraph into separate paragraphs.

And you missed the most interesting comment:

I just do not trust people [such as IMFResearch] who claim they are doing something for my benefit, the last person who told me that was a military recruiter!

Excuse me, but doesn't Peter Eric Hendrickson claim to be working for the benefit of the public?

[Disilloosianed]

Does anyone know anything about IMFresearcher? I was just wondering if he was just amusing himself with LH or if we are witnessing a TP finding the light.

[ASITStands]

It appears from the docket Hendrickson's Reply Brief has been stricken. That being the case, the appeal is now fully docketed.

Maybe it's time for another poll on when the panel will issue its decision?

[Disilloosianed]

And oddly enough, there's nothing about it on LH.

[Dezcad]

Here's the LH post on it - "too much truth" - now that's funny.

iamfreeru2

85 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2007 : 10:46:41 AM
Looks like Pete's brief was stricken from the record on 10/11/2007 according to Pacer. Could be too much truth to put on the record. Can't have any citizen slaves finding out about this now can we. I have often said claiming US citizenship is a losing proposition. Some refuse to listen, however. I really hate to say this, but Pete is about to lose. I I am still hoping otherwise, but the handwriting on the wall.

[webhick]

Here's the LH post on it - "too much truth" - now that's funny.

iamfreeru2

85 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2007 : 10:46:41 AM
Looks like Pete's brief was stricken from the record on 10/11/2007 according to Pacer. Could be too much truth to put on the record. Can't have any citizen slaves finding out about this now can we. I have often said claiming US citizenship is a losing proposition. Some refuse to listen, however. I really hate to say this, but Pete is about to lose. I I am still hoping otherwise, but the handwriting on the wall.

Darth Hendrickson should be jettisoning him out the airlock shortly.

[Famspear]

Some refuse to listen, however. I really hate to say this, but Pete is about to lose. I I [sic] am still hoping otherwise, but the handwriting [is] on the wall.

Yes, in Bizarro Peter "Blowhard" Hendrickson's world, that's a clearly "frivolous" position! Begin ejection sequence procedures!

--"Roger, Captain Blowhard, ejection sequence initiated."

[LPC]

I'd be curious to know why Hendrickson's reply was stricken, because I can think of only three reasons:

1. The brief was too long. The rules limit a reply brief to 15 pages and Hendrickson's brief is 24. But that's not much and I would have expected some leeway for a pro se.

2. The brief was largely impertinent and irrelevant. Most of Hendrickson's brief was given over to name-calling ("rogue agency," "fanciful sophistry," "sly, compound misrepresentation," "merely lies," etc.) with little or no actual citation of any authority.

3. The brief wasn't really a "reply brief." A reply is normally limited to responding to new arguments or new citations raised in the preceding pleading or brief, but Hendrickson is mostly just rehashing to same old stuff, making only occasional gestures to replying to the government's brief.

Or perhaps those three things in combination caused the court to strike the brief, but I think it was a mistake (and it was a mistake for the government to move to strike). Better to simply rule against Hendrickson than to strike his brief and give him cause to cry "foul."

[Dr. Caligari]

1. The brief was too long. The rules limit a reply brief to 15 pages and Hendrickson's brief is 24. But that's not much and I would have expected some leeway for a pro se.

I think it was even longer than that, because he also attached two "memoranda of law" to the brief. But if that was the ground for granting the motion, the court should have stricken the brief and given him 10 days to file one of the correct length.

[ASITStands]

What about simply being late?

If you look at the initial brief, it was due 06/26 and docketed on 06/26. The reply brief was due 09/13 and docketed 09/14. I realize that can occur, but if he delivered it by electronic means could it not simply have been late?

In that case, you'd expect the clerk to deny it.

[Dezcad]

FWIW, here's the docket. No documents available online. PH responded to the motion to strike.

Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-1510 Filed:
Nsuit: 1870 Tax Suits: Taxes
USA v. Hendrickson, et al
Appeal From: Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

Originating Court Information:
District: 0645-2 : 06-11753
Trial Judge: Nancy G. Edmunds, U.S. District Judge
Magistrate Judge: R. Steven Whalen
Date Filed: 04/12/2006
Date Order/Judgment: Date NOA Filed:
02/26/2007 04/17/2007

08/20/2007 Appellee MOTION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA to issue sanctions. Certificate of service: 08/13/2007

08/27/2007 Appellant MOTION filed by Peter E. Hendrickson to extend time to file brief. Certificate of service: 08/24/2007

08/27/2007 LETTER SENT granting motion to extend time to file brief [3644772-2] filed by Peter E. Hendrickson.

08/27/2007 Open Document BRIEFING LETTER SENT resetting briefing schedule: reply brief due 9/13/07, joint appendix now due 09/20/2007.

09/14/2007 REPLY BRIEF filed by Party Peter E. Hendrickson. Copies:7. Certificate of Service:09/13/2007.

09/18/2007 APPENDIX filed by Peter E. Hendrickson. Copies:4..

09/27/2007 Appellee MOTION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA to strike brief of Appellant Peter E. & Doreen M. Hendrickson. Certificate of service: 09/26/2007.

09/28/2007 ADDITIONAL CITATION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA. Certificate of Service:09/24/2007.

10/10/2007 Appellant RESPONSE in opposition filed regarding a motion to strike brief; previously filed by filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA in 07-1510. Response from Party Peter E. Hendrickson. Certificate of Service:10/09/2007.

10/11/2007 ORDER filed granting motion to strike brief [3664332-2] filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA.

[Dr. Caligari]

09/27/2007 Appellee MOTION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA to strike brief of Appellant Peter E. & Doreen M. Hendrickson. Certificate of service: 09/26/2007.

09/28/2007 ADDITIONAL CITATION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA. Certificate of Service:09/24/2007.

10/10/2007 Appellant RESPONSE in opposition filed regarding a motion to strike brief; previously filed by filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA in 07-1510. Response from Party Peter E. Hendrickson. Certificate of Service:10/09/2007.

10/11/2007 ORDER filed granting motion to strike brief [3664332-2] filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA.

Can anyone download those documents so we know what this was about?

[LPC]

09/27/2007 Appellee MOTION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA to strike brief of Appellant Peter E. & Doreen M. Hendrickson. Certificate of service: 09/26/2007.

09/28/2007 ADDITIONAL CITATION filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA. Certificate of Service:09/24/2007.

10/10/2007 Appellant RESPONSE in opposition filed regarding a motion to strike brief; previously filed by filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA in 07-1510. Response from Party Peter E. Hendrickson. Certificate of Service:10/09/2007.

10/11/2007 ORDER filed granting motion to strike brief [3664332-2] filed by Mr. John A. Nolet for USA.

Can anyone download those documents so we know what this was about?

Not through PACER or the 6th Circuit web site. (I've tried both.)

You would think Hendrickson would have reasons to publish the documents, but so far he hasn't. (Although it's awfully hard to tell what's on Hendrickson's web site, which makes PAM's look orderly and well-designed by comparison.)

[ASITStands]

Hendrickson actually discussed the motion in last week's newsletter, but all he alleged was the government wanted the memorandum dismissed.

These Scofflaws Are More On The Ball Than One Might Expect...

Recognizing a fatal danger to both their bogus "lawsuit", and the overall "income" tax scheme, the DOJ/IRS are attempting to have the two memorandums of law filed with our Appellate Reply Brief in the Sixth Circuit struck from consideration by the court. The reason is simple: This contest is THE contest regarding the "income" tax, and the DOJ and IRS know it. I hope you know it, too, and are sharing that knowledge with others-- both those already awakened to the subject but distracted by the cacophony within the "tax honesty" community, and those in the press and legal community, as discussed here.

The adversary's motion is not available as an electronic file, but the response filed is-- read it here.

Here's the link to his "response".

[Dr. Caligari]

You would think Hendrickson would have reasons to publish the documents, but so far he hasn't. (Although it's awfully hard to tell what's on Hendrickson's web site, which makes PAM's look orderly and well-designed by comparison.)

Actually, I went to his "News of the Day" page and found a link to his opposition to the motion to strike. It was, however, at his usual level of clarity.