An Open Letter to Pete's Followers on Lost Horizons

[Famspear]

Likewise, Peter E. Hendrickson was not someone who saw "how the tax works" or "how it can be misapplied," or "what can and should be done when it has been misapplied."

Hendrickson and his followers are not "exploited victims" of a "decades-old scheme," and they are not being "responsible, grown-up citizens of the Constitutionally-limited American republic that the Founders of this great country established for themselves and their posterity."

http://www.losthorizons.com/

No, Hendrickson is someone who, over twenty years ago, in April 1990, was so obsessed with what he viewed as an unfair federal income tax system that he crossed the line from peaceful, lawful protest to criminal activity directly related to the income tax. He went to federal prison for that.

Look at the language he uses. He now claims to have discovered that the federal income tax is a system perpetrated by "political hacks" who have been "looting America for decades," and that the system is supported by what he calls a "lapdog mainstream media that is perfectly happy with the status quo." Hendrickson's hatred of the federal income tax and of those he believes support it is quite clear.

What has always motivated Hendrickson and others like him is not some magical, mystical "discovery" that the income tax law is somehow "misapplied" (as he, and others who realize that frivolous arguments about the constitutionality of the law are doomed to failure, often phrase it). No, what motivates those people is a hatred so strong that they delude themselves into "believing" that the tax law is something other than what it is, and that those who explain the law properly are somehow engaging in a defense of the law and of what those people feel is an unfair, corrupt system.

No, Hendrickson hopped from one anti-tax theory to another -- until about 2002 or 2003, when he began publishing his latest version of his anti-tax theories: the "Cracking the Code" tax scam. Since the early 1990s, Hendrickson has always been a criminal in search of a rationale to "justify" his own hatred of the federal income tax.

And his followers are much the same. We see this on the lost horizons web site, as these people admit -- with no apparent sense of self-consciousness -- that they tried other scams before coming to "Cracking the Code." Indeed, many of them, like "SkankBeat" continue to troll the waters of the internet for still more and more nutty theories -- theories which are then brought into the losthorizons web site, and which seem to be eagerly gobbled up by at least some of the remaining wackadoosters over there. Hendrickson himself complained of this problem before, having "wiped" the web site's forum on repeated occasions when things just got too "out of hand."

Now Hendrickson is back in prison. One wonders whether he must now be slowly boiling, if he doesn't have internet access, as he thinks about what he knows must be happening at his web site.

Or, maybe not. Maybe he is just busy planning the next phase of his criminal activity.

To the followers of Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code scam: No, you have not discovered "The Truth." And no, you are not "warriors." And no, you are not "standing tall."

[Famspear]

In April 2006, Hendrickson admitted on his own web site that he had been a non-filer of federal income tax returns for sixteen years. It's unclear (A) whether he meant that all of those sixteen years were prior to his conviction in the early 1990s, or (B) whether he meant he was a non-filer for the 16 year period immediately prior to April 2006. In the context of his own explanation -- which relates to his guilty plea in his criminal case in the early 1990s -- and based on certain other records (see below), I conclude that the answer is "A."

This sixteen year period, of course, would presumably have been the early 1990s, all of the 1980s, and perhaps back further into the late 1970s. This would have been long before he came up with his wackadoodle Cracking the Code "theory" (published around 2002 or 2003) that the term "wage" somehow does not include earnings realized in an "activity" not connected to the exercise of a "federal privilege."

In court in the early 1990s, Hendrickson claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had held "that wages, salaries, and commissions do not constitute income under the meaning [ … ] of the Sixteenth Amendment." Of course, neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever held any such thing.

After he was released from prison in the 1990s, Hendrickson apparently began to abandon that theory or, at least, did not use it on his own tax returns, which he had begun filing. In that period, he allegedly filed tax returns that accurately reported his wages and income, but he altered the jurat (the "under penalty of perjury" language near the signature space) on his tax return to show his disagreement with the income tax on wages.

By the time of "Cracking the Code" (i.e., after about 2002 or 2003), his transformation was complete. In May of 2009, Hendrickson stated (on his web site) that the idea that "wages" are not income under the "revenue laws" was a "pitfall" and a "misunderstanding." Here, of course, Hendrickson was still wrong about other aspects of the income tax; he was applying his own narrow, Cracking-the-Code definition of "wages" -- a definition which the federal courts have rejected without exception -- a definition which he himself seems to have adopted especially for his "Cracking the Code" book, by more or less copying or modifying older, worn out, frivolous arguments about the meaning of "income."

So, Harvester and SkankBeat and others of their ilk are not the only ones with a history of hopping from one rationale to another.

[Nikki]

Harvester isn't a LoserHead or any other specific form of compliance-challenged individual.

He, simply, is an attention whore.

He has no life outside his presence here and on the, LoserHeads, and possibly other, forums.

Our responses to him are enabling. They give some value to his otherwise pathetic existence.

Although is is smugly self-satisfying to apply our collective erudition to rebutting his gibberish, we need to consider one simple fact: If we close our eyes, he goes away.

Unfortunately, without revealing to the casual reader that Harvester has no clothes, his inanities might seriously damage someone who is honestly seeking answers.

Thus the dilemma: Allow him to post lies without refutation or act to protect the truely innocent.

[Harvester]

Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion. That does speak to the superiority of non-filing over filing (or filing with rebuttal). What's up for Labor Day Fammie?

Nikki, here's the take-home facts: I lawfully pay no Income tax.
The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel profiting off everyone holding FRNs.
The IRS mainly functions to harvest wealth from Americans and into the IMF/bankster coffers.
People are waking up to the fraud. The big banks are bankrupt.
with your support White Knights are bringing it all down. We're going back to real gold-backed US Treasury money. DingDong the Fed is dead. Which is dead? The big bad Fed. DingDong the wicked Fed is dead.
All the Kings horses and all the Quatloos men cannot put the fraud back together again.
You are in denial.

[Moderator: link redacted for another site spreading lies and myth about the Fed]

[Arthur Rubin]

... here's the take-home facts: I lawfully pay no Income tax.

Possible, if you have no income, which I'm perfectly willing to believe.

The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel profiting off everyone holding FRNs.

False.

The IRS mainly functions to harvest wealth from Americans and into the IMF/bankster coffers.

False.

People are waking up to the fraud. The big banks are bankrupt.

Doubtful; they're still following Henderson. The second statement is possible; I've often thought that many banks would be insolvent if standard accounting principles are applied.

[Famspear]

Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion. That does speak to the superiority of non-filing over filing (or filing with rebuttal). What's up for Labor Day Fammie?

Oh, so going to prison for non-filing isn't a "repercussion"? Hendrickson himself admitted that he went to prison for one of those 16 years of non-filing.

Nikki, here's the take-home facts: I lawfully pay no Income tax.

That's not a "fact," much less a "take-home" fact.

The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel profiting off everyone holding FRNs.

The Federal Reserve SYSTEM is the central banking system of the United States. It's not a "cartel," private, public or otherwise.

The IRS mainly functions to harvest wealth from Americans and into the IMF/bankster coffers.

No, the IRS is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.

People are waking up to the fraud. The big banks are bankrupt.
with your support White Knights are bringing it all down. We're going back to real gold-backed US Treasury money. DingDong the Fed is dead. Which is dead? The big bad Fed. DingDong the wicked Fed is dead.

You are delusional.

All the Kings horses and all the Quatloos men cannot put the fraud back together again.
You are in denial.

No, you are in denial.

[Brandybuck]

O.K., now -- tell me again how gold always holds its value, and how you can buy the same with it, or more, than you could when Granddad was a kid?

The reason gold held its value, is because the government passed laws fixing its price. Gold was not allowed to be a true commodity until Nixon.

The current spikiness of gold prices has a lot to do with the current economic uncertainty. Is inflation coming or not? How fast can Bernanke siphon out all those reserves he pumped in? Will banks start lending again? Yada yada.

[Joey Smith]

Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion

Which means that next year you will be old enough to buy a car and go to the prom.

Or it means that you are living a minimalist existence performing cash jobs, or selling watermelons by the side of the road like that one guy over at Lostheads, or you just aren't making enough money for the IRS to care, or some combination thereof.

You never see anything like a successful tax protestor; it's always the pro wrasslin' crowd or suchlike.

[Gregg]

That is a very good point. Even if you knew nothing of their screwy legal theories, you can almost always look at a tax protester and their situation, after a few years of drinking the kool aid, is always indicative of a loser. You can't get as house, cause even if you do convince a bank that you make tons of money just no "income" and therefore you can't show a tax return, just saying that much marks you as someone they aren't gonna lend to. You see, they don't want to get in the middle of the argument when the IRS sees you have an asset and they move to seize it. Not their problem and frankly there's lots of people just as qualified, looking for a mortgage who aren't batshit crazy and likely to either get into fights with tax liens or go full retard and buy into one or another mortgage redemption scam.
Sometimes they can get a decent car, but not for long, as eventually if they have a legitimate job they either get their paycheck levied or they go all Skankbeat on the boss and get fired, cause there's lot's of people willing to do whatever they do, just as qualified who aren't batshit crazy and likely to start threatening to sue if they don't quit withholding.
Once in a while they have a decent job, but see above, suing the company you work for over withholding or writing threatening letters trying to revoke your W4 is not the way to get along with your boss. Unless you're able to hit .300 against major league pitching, run for 2,000 yards in an NFL season, or saved the Company Owner's only son from certain death, they'll find someone who can and will do the job and not be a total pain in the ass.
And eventually, they all end up with no reputable friends, just the other guys they meet standing in front of Home Depot on weekends looking for work or maybe a member of their militia company or local klavarn. All your regular friends get tired of your silly rants and the ones you ask to let you sleep on the couch when you need a place get tired of you real fast.

Stupid takes a real toll on people.

[Gregg]

And still no warriors with the stones to post this over at LH?

My how the brave are cowering.

[LPC]

The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel profiting off everyone holding FRNs.

The fact that the Federal Reserve System is part of the federal government is clear from the facts that (a) it was created by Congressional statute and (b) its governors are appointed by the President with Senate approval.

And the last part of the sentence doesn't even make any sense. How could the Federal Reserve make a profit just because people hold Federal Reserve Notes?

The IRS mainly functions to harvest wealth from Americans

That's true.

and into the IMF/bankster coffers.

And that's false. The money collected by the IRS goes to the U.S. Treasury to pay for government operations. If the money collected by the IRS went somewhere else, then the federal government would have no money to spend, which makes no sense.

People are waking up to the fraud.

What "fraud"?

The big banks are bankrupt.

Despite all the money you say that they're getting from the IRS?

[Harvester]

You refuse the accept that explaining what the status quo is -- which is what we do -- does not constitute supporting the status quo.

FAMMIE! You no longer support the status quo? I knew you'd see the light & come around eventually; welcome aboard.

Pottapauq & Brandy, I would respond to your comments with a question. Check out this graph of US price levels (inflation). Place an X at 1913 and then tell me which side of that X you'd prefer you and your progeny to live?

LPC, who owns the Federal Reserve banks?

THANKS FOR STANDING TALL WARRIORS!

[Paul]

Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion. That does speak to the superiority of non-filing over filing (or filing with rebuttal). What's up for Labor Day Fammie?

Hmmmm . . . on June 24, 2010, at 5:18 pm, on "Happy father's day," our resident moron/liar said:

Good job Gwegg, you pwetty smaht for quatloser. But I am not lying; there are no inconsistencies with my story. I read CtC in 2008, filed knowledgeably and received full refund for TY2008. Have not filed since. Prior to April 15, 2009, I requested & received a return of all IRA contributions made for TY2008.

So which time were you lying, Harvester?

[Famspear]

Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion. That does speak to the superiority of non-filing over filing (or filing with rebuttal). What's up for Labor Day Fammie?

Hmmmm . . . on June 24, 2010, at 5:18 pm, on "Happy father's day," our resident moron/liar said:

Good job Gwegg, you pwetty smaht for quatloser. But I am not lying; there are no inconsistencies with my story. I read CtC in 2008, filed knowledgeably and received full refund for TY2008. Have not filed since. Prior to April 15, 2009, I requested & received a return of all IRA contributions made for TY2008.

So which time were you lying, Harvester?

I could be wrong, but I think Harvester was referring to the sixteen years that Hendrickson didn't file tax returns. I don't think Harvester was saying that he himself hadn't filed for sixteen years.

Maybe Harvey will clear that up for us, either way. Or, maybe not.

[Gregg]

Ah, 16 years of non-filing without repercussion. That does speak to the superiority of non-filing over filing (or filing with rebuttal). What's up for Labor Day Fammie?

Hmmmm . . . on June 24, 2010, at 5:18 pm, on "Happy father's day," our resident moron/liar said:

Good job Gwegg, you pwetty smaht for quatloser. But I am not lying; there are no inconsistencies with my story. I read CtC in 2008, filed knowledgeably and received full refund for TY2008. Have not filed since. Prior to April 15, 2009, I requested & received a return of all IRA contributions made for TY2008.

So which time were you lying, Harvester?

I could be wrong, but I think Harvester was referring to the sixteen years that Hendrickson didn't file tax returns. I don't think Harvester was saying that he himself hadn't filed for sixteen years.

Maybe Harvey will clear that up for us, either way. Or, maybe not.

That's the way I took it too. Everyone write down the date, Lee Harvey may have made it through a post without lying.

[Joey Smith]

BTW, the "White Knights" of NESARA are not real, that's just another scam that you've fallen for.

Recidivism stupidity.

[The Operative]

LPC, who owns the Federal Reserve banks?

LPC has already told you that he is not going to play "20 questions" on that subject...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5853&p=94908&#p94908

In that same thread, I already answered that question...
The following is a necessarily simplified explanation of the structure of the Federal Reserve system.

The Board of Governors, which controls the Federal Reserve system, is most definitely a governmental agency. Each member of the Board of Governors is selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The twelve Federal Reserve banks and the 25 branches are setup similar to corporations. However, there are significant differences between a private corporation structure and the Federal Reserve district bank structure.

Unlike most private corporations with essentially unrestricted stock ownership, the Federal Reserve district bank stock may only be held by member banks. Additionally, the number of shares a member bank subscribes to is determined as a percentage of that member bank's own capital. A member bank may own no more and no less than this percentage, which is set by the Board of Governors. (Actually, the max percentage is set by law to, I believe, 6%, but the Board of Governors has some discretion about how much of the 6% of capital that the member banks have to pay in initially. Currently, member banks are required to commit an amount of 3% of their paid-in capital with the other 3% callable on demand by the Board of Governors.)

While member banks "own" shares in the Federal Reserve District banks, those shares do not convey the normal rights of ownership that corporate shares would normally convey. If a Federal Reserve District bank were dissolved, the member banks would only receive the amount that they had paid for the shares originally. All other assets and liabilities of the Federal Reserve District bank would become the property and responsibility of the U.S. Government. Additionally, the shares do not have normal voting rights that common corporate shares would have. Each member bank, regardless of the number of shares it holds, has ONE vote for each of six seats on the Federal Reserve District bank's board of directors. The Board of Governors selects the other three members of the bank's board of directors and one of those three is selected as the Chairman and another is selected as the Deputy Chairman. There are additional restrictions on who may be elected as a director of a Federal Reserve District bank. BTW, profits of the Federal Reserve are paid to the U.S. Treasury every year.

In a regular corporation were dissolved, once assets were sold and liabilities were paid, whatever is left would be distributed to the stockholders. If the sale of assets less liabilities equaled to less than the previous financial statements amount of stockholder's equity, then the stockholders get whatever is left. If the sale of assets is greater than book value and after liabilities are paid, the stockholders would receive more than the amount of stockholder's equity shown on the previous financial statements. In the case of the Federal Reserve, if it were dissolved, the member banks only receive what they paid for the stock, no more and no less. All assets and liabilities would become the responsibility of the U.S. Government, regardless of the balance.

Now, are you going to learn something or continue to be a mental midget?

[wserra]

Now, are you going to learn something or continue to be a mental midget?

A suggestion to my Quatloosian colleagues: Harvey is, first and foremost, a troll. He's not looking to learn, he's looking to get a reaction. The template for a Harvey post:

Nyah, nyah, nyah. I'm great.

[Some nonsense.]

http://www.paytriotninny.com

STAND TALL, WARRIORS!

When you answer this, you do what he wants. Your answers are probably his major form of gratification. Why do people still answer him?

For those who say that they don't want to leave his nonsense unchallenged for the sake of casual readers - the most casual reader can't miss how many times Harvey has made an ass out of himself. If people still feel it's important - I don't, but I'm just one opinion - there are other ways. We could devote a thread to all of the times Harvey has been proven wrong. We could even rope in his posts on Lost Heads. We could make it a "Sticky" so no one could miss it. From then on, for the sake of newbies the only answer to Harvey need be a link to that thread.

If the only answers he gets are silence or a link to a "Harvey's Nonsense" thread, I don't see him staying around long.

[bmielke]

Gregg, as this thread is fast approaching 100 posts I want to get this in here.

I attempted to register for Lost Horizions to put your open letter up, I did it the soon after this thread went up went up so in about a week it I have not gotten a response. I kind of doubt I will be allowed to regester.

I used my Quatloos name and listed www.quatloos.com as my website. But I tried for you Gregg

If Harvey had a little Testicular Fortitude he would post it.

[Gregg]

Now, are you going to learn something or continue to be a mental midget?

A suggestion to my Quatloosian colleagues: Harvey is, first and foremost, a troll. He's not looking to learn, he's looking to get a reaction. The template for a Harvey post:

Nyah, nyah, nyah. I'm great.

[Some nonsense.]

http://www.paytriotninny.com

STAND TALL, WARRIORS!

When you answer this, you do what he wants. Your answers are probably his major form of gratification. Why do people still answer him?

For those who say that they don't want to leave his nonsense unchallenged for the sake of casual readers - the most casual reader can't miss how many times Harvey has made an ass out of himself. If people still feel it's important - I don't, but I'm just one opinion - there are other ways. We could devote a thread to all of the times Harvey has been proven wrong. We could even rope in his posts on Lost Heads. We could make it a "Sticky" so no one could miss it. From then on, for the sake of newbies the only answer to Harvey need be a link to that thread.

If the only answers he gets are silence or a link to a "Harvey's Nonsense" thread, I don't see him staying around long.

Here here!

As Capt. Picard would say, "Make it so" and then the only socially respectable reply to Lee Harvey will forever more be "Sorry Harvey, that looks like more chum for the "Harvester is a loser" Thread.

If Harvey had a little Testicular Fortitude he would post it.

Ha! If pigs had wings, they could fly, too!