Peter E. ("Blowhard') Hendrickson hasn't lost his ability to prevaricate. Here's a relatively new post from the Blowhard Himself at his lost horizons web site:
Since I've been out of prison I've been very dismayed at the moribund and dissolute feel in some quarters of the once-uniformly-vibrant CtC community. Periodically I am given some insight into why this is. One of my kids will stumble across a smear-site, or I'll get an email from someone expressing shock or a sense of having been betrayed because of what they imagine they've just learned about me or CtC.
http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm
Oh, what a surprise!
On these instances I am reminded that the internet continues to harbor a swarm of government-agent-maintained and -sponsored websites and blogs. These utterly unscrupulous enemies of the people-- some of whom present themselves as "tax attorneys", and some who pretend to be members of the tax honesty community itself-- shamelessly exploit the seemingly bottomless reserve of conditioned respect for "authority" to glaze the eyes of the simple-minded from seeing what has actually happened in the CtC story, and what is actually happening now.
Baloney, Pete. You consider Quatloos to be your nemesis. Quatloos is not "government-agent-maintained." Yes, some of the posters are IRS employees. Others, like me, are not.
Your reference to the supposedly shameless exploitation of a "seemingly bottomless reserve of conditioned respect for 'authority' " is so much hot air. You're the one who expects your minions to take your word as the Authority On The Federal Income Tax. Would you like me to reprint your very words again here?
You're a two-bit ex-con who hasn't learned his lesson, and who probably never will, Pete.
More from the Blowhard:
These trolls post references to "Hendrickson being ruled against" or "convicted", along with varyingly-elaborate case citations and such. The idea is that you (or any other reader) will reflexively treat "ruled against" or "convicted" as meaning that an impartially-refereed legal contests were conducted in which something about CtC was proven wrong, or I was proven guilty of something (intending that to be taken as meaning the same thing).
Baloney. You're the troll, Pete. Yes, you were ruled against. And yes, you were convicted. And yes, the judges in all your cases were impartial. And yes, CtC has been proven wrong -- over and over and over and over.....
Now, try to prove me wrong, jerk.
Frankly, I would hope that by now there would be few left in the country who still believe that the outcome of ANY government-administered forum, or any government-sourced information, can be taken for granted as reliable and objectively valid. More, I would hope that anyone to whom my name means anything would understand that anything negative said about me or CtC by reference to the outcome of any government-administered forum is not only nonsense on stilts but is a deliberate lie-- a lie of omission, at least.
This is not a "government-administered forum", bozo. And I've never seen anything written about you on this forum by anyone that I've known to be untrue.
Such posts and comments will carefully omit acknowledgement of all the manipulations and evasions involved in constructing the "judicial" outcomes to which they refer. This is like holding up the "People's Court" convictions of Hans and Sophie Scholl as proof that the "White Rose" activists were villains.
Oh, come on, now. You're comparing your own court cases to the kangaroo court "People's Court" of Nazi Germany? You're comparing yourself to Hans and Sophie Scholl, who lost their lives for defying Hitler? Pete, you are pathetic.
These mendacious hit-pieces won't mention the denial of the jury's request to see the actual law relevant to my trial, for instance, and that the jury was actually ordered to deliberate using prosecution-written replacements for the statutes; or the jury being ordered to take as fact that the IRS was of the "view" that my earnings were "wages" without anyone being put on the stand to actually say (or be questioned about) such a thing. Nor will the trolls speculate as to why such manipulations (and many others) were necessary to achieve the outcome sought by the government.
Bullsh*t, Pete. There is nothing mendacious in what has been written here about you. And for the umpteenth time, neither you nor any other criminal defendant has a legal right to by-pass the judge by arguing the law to the jury. You do not have a legal right to have the jury see the material you want them to see, whether it be copies of statutes or copies of court opinions. We've been over this over and over and over and over again.
For the umpteenth time, Blowhard: The compensation you receive for services you perform in an activity not connected with the exercise of a federal privilege is includible in gross income under the tax law -- except to the extent otherwise excluded. You have never, ever cited any constitutional provision, statute or court case that supports your goofy "federal privilege" theory, because there simply is no such authority.
The appellate court's outright misrepresentations of the trial record, misrepresentations of the appeal briefs and even misrepresentations of its own circuit precedents-- or its flat skip-over of some appeal issues-- in coming up with its unpublished denial of most of my appeal will also go unremarked. Instead, just the denial alone will be touted (and the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case), without any of these inconvenient details. Without a blush the trolls present this circling-of-the-wagons by mutually-interested co-dependents as though it proves that I was actually guilty of not believing what I've written half-a-million words about over a dozen years and proven ten thousand times over to anyone not resolutely committed to corrupt denial, rather than what it really proves, which is not anything about me...
Baloney. The appellate court did not misrepresent the trial record, etc. There is no "circling of the wagons," Pete. The courts, the IRS, the Department of Justice, the men's room attendant at the White House, none of these people or entities has any need or desire to "circle the wagons," Pete. You're the Black Knight in the Monty Python film, Pete. You're Pathetic Pete, the Preposterous Prevaricator.
More, they avoid the fact that these courts carefully refrained from making any direct declaration contrary to any CtC position on the law, OR that I was proven to have received "wages", OR that my forms were proven to have been false, etc., despite having every opportunity and reason to do so if any such thing COULD be said. There were some "the jury could have concluded" rationalizations, and a straw-man or two set up and knocked down, but not a single pronouncement attacking or disputing anything taught in CtC. Nonetheless, the trolls claim the outcome here somehow proves what I teach about the law is wrong, hoping their readers or interlocutors won't investigate for themselves and recognize that what is actually proven here is that CtC is untouchably correct.
Baloney. The courts have made direct declarations contrary to the "CtC position on the law" and we've quoted from the courts' opinions over and over. In some cases, the courts have referred to your name directly, and have specifically mentioned the title of your book, "Cracking the Code." You are well aware of this, Pete. You're a liar.
Further, troll-posts and dialoguing will carefully omit all mention of the undeniable acknowledgements of the truth going on everywhere and at all times outside this singular fragile and precarious charade targeting me. No mention will be made of the victories-- both EWWBL-grade and normal, everyday victories-- continuing to be issued to CtC -educated men and women throughout all these show trial shenanigans, the most recent of which was...oh yeah, just 17 days ago... Those victories plainly put the lie to the trolls' intended take-away of, "See! CtC must be wrong, 'cause the courts have ruled against Hendrickson!"
Obtaining a refund through fraud -- ie., by using your scheme, Pete, is not a "victory." It's a fraud.
No acknowledgement is made of the fact that it's been long years since any CtC-educated claim has arrived in any tax-agency office without being instantly recognized for what it is, and yet typically those claims are honored without hesitation, or with merely a token effort to resist. No acknowledgement is made of the fact that this can only be because even those who would like nothing more than to thwart them if they legally could do so know that CtC-educated claims are perfectly correct and proper; have no legal choice but to honor them; and are just relying on things like my "show trial" to discourage and mislead people into standing down and going silent.
Baloney. As I have already demonstrated in this web site, the total amount of fraudulent refunds that have been generated using your scheme, Peter, represents a tiny fraction of the total amount of fraudulent or other erroneous refunds paid out by the Internal Revenue Service. The "CtC-educated" fraudulent refunds are issued because of systemic incompetency at the IRS, not because of some imaginary validity to your scheme.
No, Pete, what I and others have written about you here is true. You're a two-time loser, an ex-con.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
