Blowhard Hendrickson touts another CtC victory

[Famspear]

On his "news" page, Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson is now showing a picture of a 2013 federal income tax refund check dated June 6, 2014, supposedly issued to a Paul and Dorene Eberle of Minnesota, in the amount of $31,488.67 (including $113.67 of interest). The Fabulous Felon asserts that this is:

....a complete refund of all amounts withheld from Paul and Dorene during 2013 as federal income taxes, including nominal "federal income tax withheld", "Social security tax" and "Medicare tax", plus a bit of interest....

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

He also comments:

These are folks who have gone into battle on behalf of YOUR rule of law-- without any big support structure, without any parades and pomp, and sometimes with no meaningful gain to themselves other than the satisfaction of knowing they've done the right thing in a good cause. Celebrate them, and tell your children: "This is what true patriots do!"

Thanks, Pete. You've really done these folks a favor.

[LPC]

On his "news" page, Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson is now showing a picture of a 2013 federal income tax refund check dated June 6, 2014, supposedly issued to a Paul and Dorene Eberle of Minnesota, in the amount of $31,488.67 (including $113.67 of interest).

That's http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne for those of you playing the Tax Evasion home version.

And riddle me this, Batman: The fourth check that is shown is from the state of Michigan. Even assuming that all of Hendrickson's blather is correct, what is there in the federal constitution that limits the state of Michigan to taxing only "federally connected" income?

This reminds me of Larken Rose's failure to pay income taxes to Pennsylvania, which was somehow based on the belief that the regulations under section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code limited the ability of the state of Pennsylvania to collect income taxes on incomes earned in Pennsylvania.

[Gregg]

"This is what true patriots do!"

Go to jail for tax evasion?

[Gregg]

I'll bookmark that page to see if Pete updates it when the IRS catches the mistake and starts going after that false refund. I'm curious if Pete will just sweep it under the rug or if he puts a lot of effort into how they did it wrong and if only they had said the right magic words it would have worked out for them as well as it did on his own tax returns,,,oops, wait...well, it sure as hell won't be Pete's fault. The one thing I can be assured of is Pete won't be giving him any support.

[.]

Huh.

Somehow the marks find the CtC BS, but they just can't manage to run across any of the chatter about the long history of how all of those partially redacted bogus CtC "refund" checks are traced back to their recipients and the improper refund amount reduced by suit to a judgment enforceable by levy.

CtC mark: "Here's a copy of my check -- hide my identity, OK?"

PH: "No problem."

It's true. You can't fix stupid.

[VinnyZ]

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Paul-D-E ... MN/2u2gi6w


Just a few miles south of where I live......

[Famspear]

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Paul-D-E ... MN/2u2gi6w


Just a few miles south of where I live......

Fortunately for Hendrickson's Heroes, no personnel from the Internal Revenue Service would ever read information found on this Quatloos forum.....

.............or, let's say, write down something they found in the forum..........

..................or, actually investigate any information they found in this forum.......

.....would they?

[Famspear]

The high point of my literary career [cough...] (such as it is) occurred when Demo informed me that one of my limericks posted here in a thread in the Quatloos forum made it to a bulletin board of the war room of a certain group of law enforcement personnel in the Edward and Elaine Brown case.

[AndyK]

At one time, the IRS had a not-insignificant number of staff assigned solely to monitor the CtC web site and follow up on every "victory" which was posted.

They had specific resources dedicated to them which allowed them to identify the checks which were posted. They also had open communications with every state tax agency.

Simply put, within a week of any check being posted, ALL the state and federal machinery was in motion to recover the inappropriate refunds -- by any legal means possible.

Why else would have so many of Pete's Heros find their salaries, bank accounts, SS payments, etc garnished so rapidly after boasting of their victories?

In addition, this IRS staff regularly captured screen images of Pete's web site as ammunition in Tax Court (and criminal) cases.

[fortinbras]

Want to share another Hendrickson courtroom performance with you:

US v. Gregory P. Boyd (5th Cir., Dec. 9, 2014):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 9517009711

Of particular interest is this twist:

Boyd elected to take the stand. He testified that based on Cracking the Code, he believed that only people who received income from the federal government had to pay taxes. Peter Hendrickson, the author of Cracking the Code, also testified for the defense. He explained that, contrary to Boyd's position, his book did not express the view that individuals had no obligation to accurately declare their income and pay federal taxes. When the prosecutor questioned Boyd about that statement on cross-examination, Boyd responded that he had not heard that part of Hendrickson's testimony.

The parties agreed that despite Hendrickson's testimony, his book did present the theory that Boyd described. The prosecutor told the judge that he should not have cross-examined Boyd about that part of Hendrickson's testimony because it could confuse the jury. The district court proposed that the parties stipulate that Hendrickson's testimony was wrong on that point, but Boyd did not agree. The prosecutor then proposed that he would clarify in closing argument that Hendrickson's book espoused the theory described. The court agreed, and counsel for Boyd did not object.

In other words, brought in by the defense lawyers for one of his clients, Hendrickson lied through his teeth to sabotage this man's defense, which essentially consisted of relying on Hendrickson and thus shifting the blame to Hendrickson.

I wonder if Hendrickson tells his customers in advance how unhelpful he'll be (sort of the opposite of H&R Block) if they run into trouble following his instructions.

[Jeffrey]

Do I dare ask whether Hendrickson has ever acknowledged his little adventure with Boyd?

[Famspear]

Do I dare ask whether Hendrickson has ever acknowledged his little adventure with Boyd?

Yes. Here's the thread:

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9680

[fortinbras]

Hendrickson had already been in court in his own cases for his notion that money not gotten from govt could not be taxed. So by denying his own teaching he was (1) backstabbing a client who had trusted him, and (2) committing perjury. There are plenty of court decisions that show that Hendrickson's teachings were nonsense, but this case shows not only that but that Hendrickson knows it and is swindling his clients.

[Famspear]

....Peter Hendrickson, the author of Cracking the Code, also testified for the defense. He explained that, contrary to Boyd's position, his book did not express the view that individuals had no obligation to accurately declare their income and pay federal taxes. When the prosecutor questioned Boyd about that statement on cross-examination, Boyd responded that he had not heard that part of Hendrickson's testimony.

I haven't read an actual transcript of Hendrickson's testimony. But in fairness to Hendrickson, I suspect that he never actually backed off from what he claims in his book. For instance, I don't think he claims in his book that individuals have no obligation to accurately declare their income and pay taxes. So, if he said, in open court, that individuals DO have an obligation to accurately declare their income and pay taxes, he would be (in his own mind) stating something that is consistent with what he has written in his book.

He plays ineffectual word games with words such as "income," "trade or business," "includes," "including," "wage," "employer," "employee," and so on. Using those word games, he comes to his erroneous conclusion that the federal income tax law does not apply to income not connected to the exercise of a federal privilege. His "out" (in his own mind) is that if you have income connected to the exercise of a federal privilege, then (and then only) will the law require you to report the income.

Hendrickson tries, but he is just not smart enough for the psychological "game" he has been playing all these years. For example, he is not smart enough to devise a scheme that will allow him to avoid federal prison. He doesn't quite learn enough from his mistakes. Indeed, he does not even recognize his mistakes for what they are.

It is certainly true, however, that Hendrickson does not stand behind his followers -- especially those who are sent to prison. Instead, he makes a variety of specious arguments to the effect that the reason a follower has lost is because the follower did not quite use Hendrickson's non-method "Cracking the Code" method properly. Hendrickson will never admit the truth: that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and that "Cracking the Code" is just another tax evasion scheme.