LH Announcements

[ashlynne39]

At losthorizons, a user called "Soulcatcher" writes:

I have recently been in contact with Pete's wife, and she informs me that with having to write two briefs, and having very limited computer time, Pete has not been able to write any new updates for Losthorizons. There will be a new editorial coming soon, as the briefs are both being submitted within the week. Pete's wife also informs me that Pete would love to get mail from his readers!

Here's the address for sending Pete mail:

Pete Hendrickson (15406-039)
FCI Milan
P.O. Box 1000
Milan, MI 48160

If you do send Pete mail, remember, all the mail is read by Feds at the prison. Do not say anything anti-prison, anti-government, and anything about guns of any kind, or anything else that could be taken as rebellious, or it will not be let through. For Pete to reply to your letters, the Prison must do a background check on you, and save your name and address in their database for them to let Pete reply to you. Pete will only reply to you if you are OKAY with the Feds doing this. You can either send him mail, and at the bottom of the letter/card, give him permission.

Pete does not want to feel forgotten. Send him an occasional letter or card and if you want to help the his family through these tough times, you can send money, or checks made out to Doreen Hendrickson, to

232 Oriole St.
Commerce Twp.
MI, 48382.

If you have any questions about this, post a reply and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

~Soulcatcher

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2683

According to Soulcatcher's latest post, the briefs went out today so hopefully we can read the briefs very soon. I'm looking forward to it. I need a good laugh. Especially if Petey has taken Skankbeat's advice:

It would be nice to see the briefs. I hope due diligence was observed and fraud on the court was developed into an adequate defense. As well, i hope common law remedy is getting proper attention. You have enough to hang these folks.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2683

I too hope that Petey used common law remedys and fraud on the court as parts of his arguments. Though I really suspect that "due dilligence" is out the window.

Here's a bet if anyone wants in on it. $10 says that the words "constructive notice" appear somewhere in Petey's briefs. I keep waiting for one of these nuts to figure out what constructive notice means and the difference between constructive and actual notice.

[Harvester]

the facts are . . . that tungsten has a density very similar to gold. 19.25g/cm3 versus 19.30g/cm3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten

One counterfeit gold bar report (of many) can be found here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/german ... ank-origin

[Harvester]

Anyone else find it odd that Harvester changes his story constantly depending on the circumstance?

He is claiming here that the CTC method is working for him. However, elsewhere he has stated that he simply does not file a return. Either he's filing a CTC educated return or he's not filing a return.

Leads me to believe that Harvey is scared and filing honest returns. He's waiting on the sidelines to see what happens with all the crazy sovereign stuff he hopes will happen, but he hasn't taken any action (or he filed one CTC and is laying low by filing correct returns). That's why his stories don't add up.

I see the reading comprehension skills of a Quatloser require me to repeat myself again. There is no conflict in my story. After reading CtC I filed an educated return for TY2008 and received a full refund; of everything. Thereafter I did not file, as I had nothing withheld and no "info returns" to rebut. Without an "info return" there is no presumption of income.

I've won. I've beat the bankers' scam. The truth is very hidden but it's not rocket science pal.

Thanks for playing. Play Again?

[Thule]

Skankbeat's advice:

It would be nice to see the briefs. I hope due diligence was observed and fraud on the court was developed into an adequate defense. As well, i hope common law remedy is getting proper attention. You have enough to hang these folks.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2683

I see SB is still too much of a coward to come forward and explain precisely how his marvelous common law will work. If Skanky is so concerned with developing this into an adequate defense, he has had plenty of opportunities to help Petey out.

Not that common law and "fraud on the court" will work, of course. But flooding the forum with vague hints on the wonders of common law and then getting snarky with people who ask for help is way beyond pathetic.

[Dezcad]

According to Soulcatcher's latest post, the briefs went out today so hopefully we can read the briefs very soon. I'm looking forward to it.

He must be referring to the reply briefs in the two cases since the Initial Briefs were filed in September. For those of you interested, here are links to the briefs already filed:

Hendrickson tax refund and contempt case
Hendrickson - Appellant Brief
USA - Appellee Brief
Hendrickson's Reply brief is due by 11/01/10

Hendrickson criminal case
Hendrickson's Appellant Brief
USA - Appellee Brief
Hendrickson's relpy brief is due by 11/11/10

As of this morning, Hendrickson's reply brief has not hit the docket in either case.

[Pottapaug1938]

"the facts are . . . that tungsten has a density very similar to gold. 19.25g/cm3 versus 19.30g/cm3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten

One counterfeit gold bar report (of many) can be found here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/german ... ank-origin"

Yeah; but gold is sold by weight. Since tungsten is lighter than gold, a gold-filled tungsten bar will 1) either be lightweight, if it is the same size as a solid gold bar; or 2) it will be noticeably larger than a solid gold bar, if the weight is correct.

I learned that facet of science back in 8th grade, so it's hardly advanced science.

[ashlynne39]

Skankbeat's advice:

It would be nice to see the briefs. I hope due diligence was observed and fraud on the court was developed into an adequate defense. As well, i hope common law remedy is getting proper attention. You have enough to hang these folks.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2683

I see SB is still too much of a coward to come forward and explain precisely how his marvelous common law will work. If Skanky is so concerned with developing this into an adequate defense, he has had plenty of opportunities to help Petey out.

Not that common law and "fraud on the court" will work, of course. But flooding the forum with vague hints on the wonders of common law and then getting snarky with people who ask for help is way beyond pathetic.

True, but then we're talking about Skankbeat who actually is way beyond pathetic.

[silversopp]

So Harvey used CtC one time and is now laying low to avoid being caught. I wonder why there are no Patriots singing songs about your incredibly valour and victory over the government? What happened to "Stand Tall Warriors"?

I hope you're getting a good return on that silver you invested in, maybe you'll be able to cover all the penalties and fees when the government does catch up to you. If not, your idol David Van Pelt should be able to teach you useful tricks for living on the street.

[Dezcad]

He must be referring to the reply briefs in the two cases since the Initial Briefs were filed in September. For those of you interested, here are links to the briefs already filed:

Hendrickson tax refund and contempt case
Hendrickson - Appellant Brief
USA - Appellee Brief
Hendrickson's Reply brief is due by 11/01/10

Hendrickson criminal case
Hendrickson's Appellant Brief
USA - Appellee Brief
Hendrickson's relpy brief is due by 11/11/10

As of this morning, Hendrickson's reply brief has not hit the docket in either case.

Hendrickson's Supplemental Brief in his Criminal case was filed on 11/01/10

Hendrickson Supplemental Brief

A few observations - despite being represented by counsel (who filed the Initial Brief) this Supplemental Brief was filed by Pete himself (although signed by Doreen). It is not a Reply to the USA's Initial Brief but is, in essence, a rehash of the Initial Brief with Pete's own touches.

One of my favorite parts is:

Whether Judge Rosen erred when he refused to grant my motions to dismiss the indictment a) as a bad-faith persecution of an inconvenient legal scholar, who the government knows has committed no crime, but wishes to silence; b) because the charges are brought for the corrupt purpose of punishing me for refusing to endorse a government claim to my property; and c) because I am not among the "persons" under a statutory duty to whom the charged offense properly applies.

(bolding added)

This is good, too - he also continues to argue that the Judgment in the tax refund case is VOID.

Frankly, it is disturbing that a sitting federal judge doesn't consider this a void judgment. Actually, since Judge Rosen lacks intimate knowledge of the case or of grounds for my view aside from testimony made during a hostile crossexamination, he can't form an opinion about the judgment even from an objective position, much less one concerning my subjective view. He is therefore exposed as unable to understand how ANYONE can view ANY judicial ruling as void! This is an obviously frivolous position, the wrongness of which is matched only by that of using it as a pretext for adding six months of imprisonment to an already grossly unjust conviction and sentence.

[wserra]

It's quite unusual for a Circuit to permit someone represented by counsel to file a pro se brief. However, the Sixth Circuit did permit Hendrickson to do so, on application of his counsel. I wondered what counsel had written to get the Circuit to agree. Well, after typical complaints about the problems of communicating with a sentenced inmate, he wrote the following:

Further, Mr. Hendrickson desires to have significant input into the contents of the appellate brief. Counsel is in the difficult position of attempting to prepare and present this Court with viable reasons for reversal and, at the same time, satisfy Mr. Hendrickson's desire to preserve all issues for appeal. For this reason, counsel requests that the Court grant Mr. Hendrickson leave to file a supplemental brief drafted by Mr. Hendrickson.

IOW, "Judge, this guy is a jerk. Please let him write his own nonsense so I don't have to deal with him."

Hey, it worked.

[Gregg]

Actually, since Judge Rosen lacks intimate knowledge of the case or of grounds for my view aside from testimony made during a hostile crossexamination, he can't form an opinion about the judgment even from an objective position, much less one concerning my subjective view.

Can one of the lawyers here help me out? Isn't it the absolutely proper way a Judge should make a decision from and only from the evidence/testimony presented in court during the trial? I mean, if you were in fact innocent, and had testified in your own behalf, would you not feel pretty good if the only thing the Judge considered was what you yourself said?

[lorne]

"the facts are . . . that tungsten has a density very similar to gold. 19.25g/cm3 versus 19.30g/cm3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten

One counterfeit gold bar report (of many) can be found here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/german ... ank-origin"

Yeah; but gold is sold by weight. Since tungsten is lighter than gold, a gold-plated tungsten bar will 1) either be lightweight, if it is the same size as a solid gold bar; or 2) it will be noticeably larger than a solid gold bar, if the weight is correct.

I learned that facet of science back in 8th grade, so it's hardly advanced science.

OMG, I'm beginning to see why a Quatloser believes the professional liars here.

DUDE! The difference between a cubic centimeter of either Tungsten or Gold is 1/20th of a gram (0.05). That's virtually imperceptible, and no, a plated tungsten bar will not be noticeably larger than a real gold bar of the same weight. That's why so many were fooled.

[LPC]

Counsel is in the difficult position of attempting to prepare and present this Court with viable reasons for reversal and, at the same time, satisfy Mr. Hendrickson's desire to preserve all issues for appeal. For this reason, counsel requests that the Court grant Mr. Hendrickson leave to file a supplemental brief drafted by Mr. Hendrickson.

IOW, "Judge, this guy is a jerk. Please let him write his own nonsense so I don't have to deal with him."

More precisely:

"Judge, this guy wants to argue whacko stuff. I don't want to be sanctioned or disbarred. Please let him argue his whacko stuff pro se."

It works for me.

[Harvester]

Captn! I see you wish to play too. Very well then. Actually the 400oz gold bar (about 27 pounds) is most common but sure, let's say 75 lbs. To make a good fake the counterfeiter must only add 3 ounces to the equal-volume tungsten slug, plate it with gold, and he's got a fake weighing exactly the same as the real bar.

To quote a news report:

Tungsten is vastly cheaper than gold (maybe $30 dollars a pound compared to $12,000 a pound for gold right now). And remarkably, it has [almost] exactly the same density as gold, to three decimal places. The main differences are that it’s the wrong color, and that it’s much, much harder than gold. (Very pure gold is quite soft, you can dent it with a fingernail.)

A top-of-the-line fake gold bar should match the color, surface hardness, density, chemical, and nuclear properties of gold perfectly. To do this, you could could start with a tungsten slug about 1/8-inch smaller in each dimension than the gold bar you want, then cast a 1/16-inch layer of real pure gold all around it. This bar would feel right in the hand, it would have a dead ring when knocked as gold should, it would test right chemically, it would weigh *exactly* the right amount, and though I don’t know this for sure, I think it would also pass an x-ray fluorescence scan, the 1/16″ layer of pure gold being enough to stop the x-rays from reaching any tungsten. You’d pretty much have to drill it to find out it’s fake.

http://www.daily.pk/fake-gold-bars-in-b ... knox-14477

And yes, someone did notice, the Chinese, who drilled into them. Now I'll grant that this was no backyard operation, the melting point of tungsten is over 3422°c, but a very sophisticated scam, probably done in concert with government.

Thanks for trying! Play again?

So Harvey used CtC one time and is now laying low to avoid being caught. I wonder why there are no Patriots singing songs about your incredibly valour and victory over the government? What happened to "Stand Tall Warriors"?

I hope you're getting a good return on that silver you invested in, maybe you'll be able to cover all the penalties and fees when the government does catch up to you. If not, your idol David Van Pelt should be able to teach you useful tricks for living on the street.

What? You call running off the tax plantation and telling everyone how I did it lawfully laying low!? The logic of a Quatloser. Yes, I'm getting quite a good return on silver, thank you; but please make certain all your investments are denominated in depreciating "dollars."

Sounds like your conditioning is nearly complete. Congratulations. Now let's see what you've won. Oh look, you've won a lifetime of indentured servitude. Give him a hand ladies and gentlemen. Now please report to your master.

STAND TALL WARRIORS!

[LPC]

Actually, since Judge Rosen lacks intimate knowledge of the case or of grounds for my view aside from testimony made during a hostile crossexamination, he can't form an opinion about the judgment even from an objective position, much less one concerning my subjective view.

Can one of the lawyers here help me out? Isn't it the absolutely proper way a Judge should make a decision from and only from the evidence/testimony presented in court during the trial? I mean, if you were in fact innocent, and had testified in your own behalf, would you not feel pretty good if the only thing the Judge considered was what you yourself said?

Pretty much.

It would be absolutely wrong, and reversible error, for a judge to decide a case based on the judge's personal knowledge, rather than the evidence introduced in the case.

However, even the uncontradicted testimony of a party to a case can be disregarded. The trier of fact, having observed the demeanor of a witness, can choose to disregard the testimony of that witness and choose to credit the testimony of another witness instead.

In other words, the prosecution can present witnesses, but those witnesses don't need to be believed. The defense can also present witnesses, but those witnesses don't need to be believed. Still, in order to prevail, the prosecution must present witnesses whose testimony, if believed, are sufficient to prove all of the elements of the case for the prosecution.

The prosecution cannot win simply because the judge believes that the prosecution is correct, without any convicting evidence, but the defense can win without any evidence at all if the judge (or jury) does not believe the evidence presented by the prosecution.

[notorial dissent]

The prosecution cannot win simply because the judge believes that the prosecution is correct, without any convicting evidence, but the defense can win without any evidence at all if the judge (or jury) does not believe the evidence presented by the prosecution.

That is after all what a trial is about, the prosecution presenting a provable case, by way of believable and provable evidence.

Pete's problem is that the prosecutor proved that Pete was an "employee" of the company, being paid "wages", that he did not report, and that he tried to get other taxes back by claiming that he was not an employee and had not had wages, and they succeeded in showing it and he failed miserably in denying it.

Pete's delusions not withstanding, the prosecution proved their contentions, and the jury saw through his refutations.

[silversopp]

OMG, I'm beginning to see why a Quatloser believes the professional liars here.

Wouldn't a "professional liar" be someone who makes money be selling a book contain lies about the tax laws? For example, someone writes a book describing a certain way to file your taxes. The author claims that his method is perfectly legal, and provides as evidence plenty of quotes that were taken out of context or simply fabricated. The author also knows first hand of court decisions that rejected his method, but the author does not include any of this information. Followers of this guy's method find themselves with penalties, fines, and sometimes prison sentences. And finally, the author himself gots tossed in prison for following his tax filing methods. That would be a professional liar, right?

Do we know anyone who fits that description?

[lorne]

Harvester tells me The Mods That Be have refused to approve his response to Mr Kickback and others. Something about class action lawsuit against the big market-riggers (JPMorgan & HSBC) Is someone here afraid of something? does the truth hurt that much? I will ask him . ..

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, silver's knocking at the door of $26/oz. (a 4% + gain today). Seems like our side is following through on promises made. Still time to get onboard. Swap your gold, swap your house, swap your car, swap your spouse. We've got the naked shorts right where we want them.

Have you taken the Silver Manipulation Quiz ?

[webhick]

Harvester tells me The Mods That Be have refused to approve his response to Mr Kickback and others. Something about class action lawsuit against the big market-riggers (JPMorgan & HSBC) Is someone here afraid of something? does the truth hurt that much? I will ask him . .. ?

It wasn't disapproved - it was still sitting in the approval queue along with another one. I stopped following this thread a page or two back or else I would have taken care of it sooner. I did, in fact, disapprove the second one because it was a word-for-word double of the one I just approved.

[silversopp]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, silver's knocking at the door of $26/oz. (a 4% + gain today). Seems like our side is following through on promises made. Still time to get onboard.

Buy high and sell low strategies don't work out too well.

You should be thinking about when to sell that silver now that it is high instead of acquiring more. The dollar will be devalued as long as the rates are low (they will stay low under the economy recovers, so you have some time), but once the FED starts jacking up the rates you'll want to dump that silver before it plummets like a half million dollar 400 sq foot house.

Have you drilled into your silver to make sure it's not fake?