Crackhead Evades His Way Into A $5K FrivPen

[The Observer]

JUSTIN CARL LAUE,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Release Date: APRIL 11, 2012

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Filed April 11, 2012

Justin Carl Laue, pro se.

Joseph A. Peters, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

JACOBS, Judge: Petitioner asserts that the money he received from Broadband Management Solutions, L.L.C. (BMS), specifically wages and nonemployee compensation he earned during 2005 and 2006, was for "labor" and not "services" and therefore does not constitute taxable income. He filed Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2005 and 2006, reporting zero as the amount of his taxable income for each year. He claimed refunds for all amounts withheld from his paychecks, e.g., Federal income tax withholding, Federal employment tax withholding, and State income tax withholding. After initially processing these purported returns, respondent deemed each to be frivolous. Respondent thereafter determined petitioner's income from third-party payor information, prepared substitutes for returns, and issued petitioner notices of deficiency. In those notices, respondent made the following determinations:

Additions to tax
__________________________________________

Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6651(a)(2)/1/ 6654(a)
______________________________________________________________________

2005 $ 30,869 $ 6,945.53 $ 7,717.25 $ 1,238.22
2006 42,988 9,672.30 8,167.72 2,034.38

/1/ tax.

After respondent's concession, the issues remaining for decision are: (1) whether petitioner had unreported income as respondent determined; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax for failing to timely file his income tax returns; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax for failing to make estimated tax payments; and (4) whether petitioner is liable for sanctions pursuant to section 6673.

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practices and Procedures.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts, and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Colorado when he filed his petitions.

During 2005 and 2006 petitioner worked for BMS. BMS paid petitioner for his services. At trial, after repeatedly evading questions posed to him by the Court, petitioner begrudgingly stated that the money he received from BMS was for "labor" but claimed that the amounts received were not "gains, profit or income" made in the course of a "trade or business".

In 2005 BMS made two types of payments to petitioner. One type, in the total amount of $ 69,653, was characterized by BMS as wages in its payroll register and on the Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, that BMS provided to petitioner and the Internal Revenue Service. That Form W-2 is included in the record. The other type of payment was characterized by BMS as nonemployee compensation. Respondent determined the amount of petitioner's nonemployee compensation to be $ 20,801. However, the record does not contain direct evidence as to the specific amount.

In 2006 BMS paid petitioner $ 130,308 as nonemployee compensation. A Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, reporting that BMS paid petitioner $ 121,890.08 as nonemployee compensation for 2006 is contained in the record.

Petitioner's 2005 Form 1040 reported the following amounts of income: (1) $ 5,210.61 that petitioner received as distributions from retirement accounts; petitioner characterized these distributions as wages, and (2) $ 258 as a State income tax refund. No other income was reported on the 2005 Form 1040. Petitioner claimed withholding credits totaling $ 13,719.51, an amount he calculated by adding all amounts withheld from his BMS paychecks as well as the standard deduction. Attached to the 2005 Form 1040 were (1) a Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., on which petitioner reported he received zero wages, tips, or other compensation, and (2) a "corrected" Form 1099-MISC on which petitioner reported he received zero in nonemployee compensation. On the "corrected" Form 1099-MISC, petitioner typed:

This corrected Form 1099-MISC is submitted to rebut
a document known to have been submitted by the party
identified above as 'PAYER' [i.e., BMS] which erroneously
alleges a payment to the party identified above as
the 'RECIPIENT' of "gains, profit or income" made
in the course of a "trade or business". Under penalty
of perjury, I declare that I have examined this statement
and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is
true correct, and complete.

On his 2006 Form 1040 petitioner reported he received no wages, nonemployee compensation, or income of any kind. Petitioner attached two "corrected" Forms 1099-MISC; each stated that he received no nonemployee compensation. Both Forms 1099-MISC contained a typed disclaimer stating that the Forms 1099-MISC BMS filed "erroneously alleges a payment" to petitioner, made "in the course of a 'trade or business'".

On May 10, 2007, respondent mailed petitioner a letter informing him that his purported tax return for 2005 had been rejected. On March 26, 2008, respondent mailed petitioner a letter informing him that his purported tax return for 2006 had been rejected. On May 7, 2008, respondent assessed frivolous return penalties against petitioner for his 2005 tax year (petitioner does not challenge these penalties). On May 28, 2010, respondent prepared substitutes for returns pursuant to section 6020(b) for 2005 and 2006. On July 21, 2010, respondent mailed petitioner two notices of deficiency, one for 2005 and the other for 2006.

OPINION

I. Whether Petitioner Had Unreported Income

In general, the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving it wrong. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In unreported income cases, however, the Commissioner must establish "some reasonable foundation for the assessment" to preserve the presumption of correctness. See Erickson v. Commissioner, 937 F.2d 1548, 1551 (10th Cir. 1991), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1989-552. Respondent has established that reasonable foundation.

With respect to 2005, respondent introduced a copy of the Form W-2 BMS prepared reporting that it paid petitioner $ 69,653 in wages. The notice of deficiency refers to this amount as well as to $ 20,801 in nonemployee compensation. Attached to the notice of deficiency were Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, and Form 886-A, Explanation of Items. These documents detail the calculations respondent made in reaching his determination for 2005. With respect to 2006, respondent introduced a Form 1099-MISC prepared by BMS reporting that it paid petitioner $ 121,890.08 as nonemployee compensation. The notice of deficiency for 2006 refers to a total of $ 130,308 in nonemployee compensation. Form 4549 and Form 886-A were attached to the notice of deficiency and provide the calculations respondent used in making his determination for 2006. These documents demonstrate that respondent had information linking petitioner to an income-producing activity, i.e., his employment.

Respondent's documentation is similar to that presented in Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1985), where the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Commissioner had sufficiently linked the taxpayers with income-producing activities. The record in Rapp contained the notices of deficiency, summonses to third parties, Form 1040, and various documents the Commissioner prepared. In finding these documents sufficient for the requisite linkage, the court stated: "these records reflect that the IRS had before it information linking the Rapps [the taxpayers] with income-producing activities, including employment, the sale of their residence, and involvement in a business * * * [although] the underlying information does not itself appear in the record". Id. at 935. The court noted that the taxpayers did not attack the presumption of correctness of the Commissioner's determination on the ground that there was no linking of the taxpayers with the income-producing activities, but rather argued only that the Commissioner did not properly allow them certain deductions. 1 Id.; see also Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-201, aff'd, 418 Fed. Appx. 637 (9th Cir. 2011).

Petitioner does not challenge respondent's determination on the ground that there was no information linking him with the income-producing activity. Moreover, we find it telling that petitioner attached to his 2005 Form 1040 a "corrected" Form 1099-MISC and attached two "corrected" Forms 1099-MISC to his 2006 Form 1040. All of these "corrected" Forms 1099-MISC showed zero income. We ascertain from the aforesaid actions that petitioner received at least one Form 1099-MISC for 2005 and at least two Forms 1099-MISC for 2006 from BMS. This would, in turn, enable us to ascertain that, although the record contains no direct evidence as to the specific amounts he received that BMS designated as nonemployee compensation for 2005 and 2006, petitioner in reality received amounts in excess of those reflected by direct evidence. 2

We therefore find that the connection between petitioner and the income-producing activity is sufficiently acknowledged to permit the presumption of correctness to attach to respondent's determination. See Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d at 935; Hahn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-203. Petitioner thus bears the burden of proving respondent's deficiency determination to be arbitrary or erroneous. He has failed to do so.

Petitioner argues that the moneys he received from BMS do not constitute income. He further argues that because respondent initially processed his purported 2005 and 2006 Federal income tax returns, respondent is required to accept those returns as valid.

Petitioner contends that the money he received from BMS is for his "labor" and is not taxable because it was not "gains, profit or income" made in the course of a "trade or business". Petitioner's contention is characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.

Section 61(a)(1) defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. Petitioner's position is frivolous and devoid of any basis in law. We need not refute petitioner's logic with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent, for to do so might suggest that it has some colorable merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011).

Petitioner's second argument is that because his purported 2005 and 2006 Federal income tax returns were initially processed as valid, respondent is (1) forbidden from reclassifying those returns as frivolous, and (2) bound to accept his tax computation. Petitioner cites Service Center Advice 200114033 (Apr. 6, 2001) for the proposition that "Once the document is treated by the Service as a valid return, it is deemed to have satisfied the * * * [Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), aff'd per curiam, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986)] test, and, therefore, should be considered a return for all tax purposes." Initially we note that a Service Center Advice is not precedent, is not law, and is not binding. Regardless, petitioner misconstrues Service Center Advice 200114033. That Advice merely states that in cases where the Commissioner accepts a tax return as valid for some purposes, he must treat that return as valid for all purposes. It does not state that if the Commissioner mistakenly begins to process a frivolous return as valid, the Commissioner may not correct the error.

Respondent did not act in an arbitrary or erroneous manner by rejecting petitioner's 2005 and 2006 tax returns as frivolous. In Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. at 777, we held that for a tax return to be considered valid, four requirements must be satisfied: "First, there must be sufficient data to calculate tax liability, second, the document must purport to be a return; third, there must be an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and fourth, the taxpayer must execute the return under penalties of perjury." Petitioner's purported returns fail the very first test because he did not include his wages and nonemployee compensation on those returns. Moreover, he attached a Form 4852 and "corrected" Forms 1099-MISC in an affirmative attempt to avoid reporting the amounts of his income. Petitioner's purported returns also fail the third test because he takes an unreasonable position in claiming that wages and nonemployee compensation he received are not income. As we previously stated in Coulton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-199: "the Commissioner should not be forced to accept as a return a document clearly not intended to provide the required information."

Petitioner refers to the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Long, 618 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1980), holding that a return filed by an individual who "had inserted zeros in the spaces reserved for entering exemptions, income, tax, and tax withheld" constituted a valid return. The court therein concluded that the Commissioner should have accepted the taxpayer's income tax returns as valid because "A return containing false or misleading figures is still a return." Id. at 76. Petitioner's case is appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, whose opinions pursuant to Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), we follow.

In United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980), a criminal case, an individual inserted zeros in all of the spaces on his tax return. The taxpayer, relying on Long, argued that his was a valid return. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Long and stated that "we respectfully disagree with that decision." Rickman, 638 F.2d at 184. The court then held that the taxpayer had failed to file a valid tax return. We therefore find that petitioner has failed to establish that respondent's determination of his unreported income was arbitrary or erroneous. We sustain respondent's determination in that regard.

II. Additions to Tax

Section 7491(c) provides that the Commissioner bears the burden of production and must produce sufficient evidence showing the imposition of an addition to tax or a penalty is appropriate. If the Commissioner meets this burden, the taxpayer must come forward with persuasive evidence that the Commissioner's determination is incorrect. Rule 142(a); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001).

A. Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax

Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file an income tax return by the time prescribed by law unless the taxpayer proves that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); McGowan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-172. Respondent has met his burden of production by demonstrating that petitioner's purported Federal tax returns were not valid under the test set forth in Beard, as noted supra p. 11. Petitioner has not otherwise provided a reasonable cause for not filing. We therefore sustain respondent's imposition of the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

B. Section 6654(a) Addition to Tax

Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax on individual taxpayers who underpay their estimated income tax. Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for 2005 and 2006. A taxpayer has an obligation to pay estimated tax for a particular year if he has a "required annual payment" for that year. Sec. 6654(d). A "required annual payment" is generally equal to the lesser of (1) 90% of the tax shown on the individual's return for that year (or if no return is filed, 90% of his or her tax for the year), or (2) if the individual filed a return for the immediately preceding taxable year, 100% of the tax shown on that return. Sec. 6654(d)(1); Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 210-212 (2006), aff'd, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008); Brennan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-77. Respondent may meet his burden of production by showing petitioner's liability for the year at issue and the immediately preceding year.

Respondent has demonstrated that petitioner had tax liabilities for 2005 and 2006 and that he made no tax payments. Respondent established, and petitioner conceded, that petitioner had a tax liability for 2004. Respondent introduced transcripts showing that petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2004, that he had a tax liability for that year, and that he paid the 2004 tax. In contrast, petitioner did not offer any evidence of his own to refute respondent's evidence. Nor did petitioner argue or establish any of the defenses enumerated in section 6654(e). Consequently, respondent's imposition of the section 6654(a) addition to tax is sustained. See Perkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-207.

III. Section 6673 Sanctions

At trial respondent's counsel requested that the Court impose sanctions against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States in an amount not to exceed $ 25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that the taxpayer instituted or maintained the proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. Petitioner was notified of respondent's intention to pursue sanctions under section 6673 both in respondent's motion for partial summary judgment, filed September 20, 2011, and in respondent's pretrial memorandum. Petitioner nonetheless went ahead in making his frivolous arguments at trial.
Petitioner's position in these cases is frivolous and groundless. His argument that the wages and nonemployee compensation paid to him by his employer are not income lacks merit.

Petitioner was evasive throughout his trial in responding to the Court's questions. He denied receiving wages from BMS; he denied he provided services to BMS; and he denied that BMS was in a trade or business. 3 We agree with respondent that sanctioning petitioner is warranted. Pursuant to the authority granted to us under section 6673(a)(1), we shall require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty of $ 5,000.

To reflect respondent's concessions,

Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requires the Commissioner to present a minimal evidentiary foundation for the deficiency in unreported income cases. See Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), rev'g 67 T.C. 672 (1977). This is a higher evidentiary standard than that required by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

/2/ We note that sec. 6201(d) is not applicable. Sec. 6201(d) provides that if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return (e.g., a Form W-2 or a Form 1099-MISC) and has fully cooperated with the Secretary, then the Secretary has the burden of producing reasonable and probative information regarding the deficiency in addition to the information reported on the information returns. Petitioner's arguments are not reasonable and he has not cooperated with respondent's agents.

/3/ Petitioner argued that "trade or business" is defined as the performance or the function of a public office.

[Famspear]

Justin Laue is mentioned at Preposterous Pete Hendrickson's losthorizons web site, here:

http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLooseII.htm

(down near the bottom of the page).

Pete reproduced a letter from Laue to a Mr. Chambers at the IRS:

Dear Mr. Chambers,

Thank you for the opportunity to present the facts of this case; hopefully we can come to a swift resolution. To that end, I am herein providing answers to your various questions.

First of all, it is a bit difficult to clearly ascertain what your specific questions are as you make several contradictions and misstatements. “Due to the fact that you… deny the taxability of wages”, “wages are in fact exempt from taxation” are examples of statements that you attribute to me that I have not made and are not true, but then you correctly state that I claimed the “amounts [paid to me] are not “wages”” as defined in IRC Sec. 3401(a) and 3121(a). On this latter statement, you seem to agree, and, regardless, is established fact as I am the one with personal knowledge and testified to this on my return.

In your letter, you asked me to “confirm that did not work for these issuers of Form W-2’s or provide [you] a statement that the reported earnings are not [mine] by ownership.” However, as I am sure you are aware, the Form W-2 is not for reporting “work” or “earnings” but rather “wages” paid from an “employer” to an “employee”, and that, in fact, any private-sector exchange of work and/or earnings between me and anyone else is beyond the scope of this case.

You then state that, as I had received no “wages” then the issuer of the Form W-2s had no business submitting withholdings to the IRS on my behalf and that it should then be a matter between myself and that issuer. In general, I might agree, however the law provides that these amounts are to be treated as “overpayments” (see IRC Sec. 6401, 6402 and 31(a)(1)). In fact, the law specifically states, “An amount paid as tax shall not be considered not to constitute an overpayment solely by reason of the fact that there was no tax liability in respect of which such amount was paid.” (Sec. 6401(c))

I am at a loss to understand the question you put forth in your fifth paragraph. Simply put, I am to be credited with the “overpayment” irrespective of any liability I eventually had, and thus also, irrespective of any “income” I may, or may not, have received. I am not seeking benefit of any sort; I only seek to recover property incorrectly diverted to the IRS as accorded me by law.

Regarding IRC Sec 61, it would suffice to show what it cannot mean: the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the income tax is not and cannot be an unapportioned direct tax (see United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), and Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)) such that “the income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax” (Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 78th Congress, March 2, 1943, to April 5, 1943).

It can be clearly shown that congress has never meant for the income tax to be a direct tax. Sec. 61 is derived from The Revenue Act of 1928 which had the benefit of The Classification Act of 1923. The first item listed in Sec. 61 is “Compensation for services”. When the meanings of the terms “Compensation” and “services” (as well as, then, “position” and “employee”) are substituted from the classification act,

“Compensation for services” has virtually identical meaning to “wages” as defined in IRC Sec. 3401(a) and 3121(a). Thus, under the principle of ejusdem generis (see United States Supreme Court, Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001) and Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 US 117 (1991)), the following items in Sec. 61 would likewise be inherently restricted to sources of income derived from federal privilege (and thus, an excise tax, not a direct tax).

As to the items of income I declared on my return, I had received Form 1099s from the persons or entities making those payments (I included these Form 1099s with my return). According to the directions for the use of Form 1099, this form is only to be used by a “Trade or Business” (i.e. “performing the functions of public office”, IRC Sec. 7701(26)). Therefore, in submitting the Form 1099s, these persons or entities were declaring under oath that they are performing the functions of public office. As I have little or no personal knowledge of the nature these persons or entities, I must take this testimony at face value. These payments would clearly then be within the meaning of Sec. 61. If I come to find that these forms were also incorrectly used, and that these persons or entities are not to be considered a “Trade or Business,” I will surely be submitting an amended return to correct this.

I hope these answers expand your understanding of the case. If necessary, I could go into much greater depth in support of each of my answers but in the interest of clarity I tried to make them brief.

Pete then adds his commentary:

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like [ . . . ] Justin, and read CtC ["Cracking the Code", the Pete Hendrickson tome on tax evasion] -- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?

Yes, the "exclusive source" of the "liberating truth" that "liberated" Preposterous Pete right back into federal prison.

[Famspear]

Let's see, now. The Tax Court determined that Justin Laue has combined federal income tax deficiencies of $73,857.00 over the two year period for 2005 and 2006, on income of nearly $200,000 that Preposterous Pete says is not "income". And, thanks to his adherence to Pete's "liberating truth," Justin is facing over $35,700 in penalties plus another $5,000 imposed by the Tax Court. So, Justin now owes over $114,000 plus interest.

Atta-boy, Justin! Another Victory for Haughty Hendrickson and His Hilarious Heroes!

[LPC]

Well this Hendrickson Hero is certainly glad to have discovered Planet Merrill.

Your comment is (as always) incoherent.

Laue was a straight-up Hendrickson acolyte. Nothing about Merrill.

Unless "this Hendrickson Hero" is a reference to yourself, in which case all whacko theories apply.

[LPC]

Justin Laue is mentioned at Preposterous Pete Hendrickson's losthorizons web site, here:

http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLooseII.htm

(down near the bottom of the page).

Pete reproduced a letter from Laue to a Mr. Chambers at the IRS:

Which Pete described as a "cogent, scholarly and calm rebuttal" to the IRS position.

And yet in court, the IRS won.

Just shows you how corrupt the courts have become.

[notorial dissent]

Just shows you how corrupt the courts have become.

Or how good Prattlin' Pete's reading comprehension is, oh, wait, we already knew that, nil!!! And this would again, seem to prove it.

[Famspear]

.....Yes, when you want to justify (in your own mind) evading the payment of federal taxes, it's best to believe in the advice of a convicted felon....

OOOoops! Did I say "advice"???? Caught myself! Hendrickson would probably respond that he doesn't actually ADVISE anyone to use his Cracking the Code method.

OOOoops! There I go again! Hendrickson says that his Cracking the Code method isn't really a "method"! Using his Cracking the Code non-method is just, uhmmm..... how does he put it? Upholding the rule of law??... yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!

Boy, there is so much about this Cracking the Code meth-, uh I mean, this Cracking the Code "upholding of the rule of law" that is just soooooooo tricky!

[Dr. Caligari]

Well this Hendrickson Hero is certainly glad to have discovered Planet Merrill.

Thank you Quatlosers!

Harvey,
When are you going to tell your friends at Lost Horizons that the Court of Appeals affirmed Pete's conviction?

[Pottapaug1938]

Well this Hendrickson Hero is certainly glad to have discovered Planet Merrill.

Thank you Quatlosers!

Harvey,
When are you going to tell your friends at Lost Horizons that the Court of Appeals affirmed Pete's conviction?

First, he has to decide whether he will 1) simply ignore the conviction, and hope that it will just go away, 2) make up some fable about corrupt courts, inevitable victory and warriors standing tall, or 3) prattle on about something irrelevant.

He avoids confronting the truth like Pontificating Pete avoids paying his fair share of the national tax burden, so don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so.

[grixit]

.....Yes, when you want to justify (in your own mind) evading the payment of federal taxes, it's best to believe in the advice of a convicted felon....

OOOoops! Did I say "advice"???? Caught myself! Hendrickson would probably respond that he doesn't actually ADVISE anyone to use his Cracking the Code method.

OOOoops! There I go again! Hendrickson says that his Cracking the Code method isn't really a "method"! Using his Cracking the Code non-method is just, uhmmm..... how does he put it? Upholding the rule of law??... yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!

Boy, there is so much about this Cracking the Code meth-, uh I mean, this Cracking the Code "upholding of the rule of law" that is just soooooooo tricky!

No, you're doing just fine. No method, just meth.

[notorial dissent]

Lest we forget, Merrill sued his motor scooter, and LOST!!!

In all fairness to David, it was a Ducati.

He still lost to his motorbike, and it was dismissed with prejudice. Not every legal beagle can claim that distinction. I think the motor scooter should have counterclaimed for defamation, and I am betting the judge would have awarded summary judgement.

First, he has to decide whether he will 1) simply ignore the conviction, and hope that it will just go away, 2) make up some fable about corrupt courts, inevitable victory and warriors standing tall, or 3) prattle on about something irrelevant.

He avoids confronting the truth like Pontificating Pete avoids paying his fair share of the national tax burden, so don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so.

That of course always presuming that Prattlin' Pete doesn't get a whole lot of time tacked on for fraud on the court, and ends up spending more time in jail for fraud than he would have for what he was convicted for. That sounds more the Prevaricatin' Pete we all know, now doesn't it.

[Dr. Caligari]

Well this Hendrickson Hero is certainly glad to have discovered Planet Merrill.

Thank you Quatlosers!

Harvey,
When are you going to tell your friends at Lost Horizons that the Court of Appeals affirmed Pete's conviction?

....(crickets)....

[Gregg]

That of course always presuming that Prattlin' Pete doesn't get a whole lot of time tacked on for fraud on the court, and ends up spending more time in jail for fraud than he would have for what he was convicted for. That sounds more the Prevaricatin' Pete we all know, now doesn't it.

It does sound as natural as water finding it's level, as a matter of fact. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen.

[notorial dissent]

I certainly do think that at this late date that it is more than time for Pete to have to really face the music, not only for the crimes he has committed, but more importantly for the overweening general stupidity he continues to evince, and the absolute contempt he has shown all along for legal process and the rule of law. At this point I think it is far past time Darlene took her rightful place beside him, at least figuratively, in a jail cell. If she was actually a party to those documents, then she is just as guilty as he is, and it is past time to quit making excuses for her. Pete doesn't do or understand subtle, it is time for the cluebyfour to come out.

[Harvester]

Harvey,
When are you going to tell your friends at Lost Horizons that the Court of Appeals affirmed Pete's conviction?

I'll do it for a hundred bitcoin.

[Pottapaug1938]

Harvey,
When are you going to tell your friends at Lost Horizons that the Court of Appeals affirmed Pete's conviction?

I'll do it for a hundred bitcoin.

If you have to be paid -- in any form -- to tell the truth, Harvey, you're a lost cause... but we knew that already, Coward.

[ashlynne39]

Harvey,
When are you going to tell your friends at Lost Horizons that the Court of Appeals affirmed Pete's conviction?

I'll do it for a hundred bitcoin.

Gee, how about you just do it rather than allow your Lost Horizons buddies to continue looking like utter morons for not figuring out the opinion has been out for months.

If there was ever any doubt about how idiotic that group is, all questions have been removed as they sit around wondering when the opinion will be released. A trained monkey could find the opinion on the internet with just a bit of research. Of course if research were their strong suit they wouldn't be following everything Pete has told them.

[notorial dissent]

Let's see, has to be paid to tell the truth, will lie for free, yup, sounds like the Hamsterdink.

[LaVidaRoja]

I will give him the benefit of this much doubt: Like most posters here who have ever posted a truth on Pete's forum, Harvey is afraid that he will be permently banned for telling Pete's followers that their beloved leader is toast. Hence, the bribe request. If ANYONE were to dare to post the truth about Pete's appeal on the LH forum, that is the LAST thing they will ever be able to post there.

[Famspear]

I will give him the benefit of this much doubt: Like most posters here who have ever posted a truth on Pete's forum, Harvey is afraid that he will be permently banned for telling Pete's followers that their beloved leader is toast. Hence, the bribe request. If ANYONE were to dare to post the truth about Pete's appeal on the LH forum, that is the LAST thing they will ever be able to post there.

People who occasionally post a real truth (as opposed to the BizarroWorld "truths" of the tax protester-tax denier) at losthorizons are subject to being attacked by their fellow scammers as "agents of deception" or similar things. Harvester himself has engaged in that kind of attack, either at losthorizons or elsewhere on the internet. Harvester and others who post at losthorizons might indeed feel reluctant to post anything truthful about Hendrickson, for fear of receiving a dose of their own "medicine" from fellower scammers. (Harvester also has a habit which exasperates some of his fellow idiots: he accuses his fellow scammers of being agents of deception, or of being Quatloos regulars, when his fellow scammers challenge Harvey and express frustration at Harvester's repetitive, nonsensical tripe and incessant avoidance of any real, logical discussion.)

I believe Hendrickson's son had posted a comment at losthorizons many weeks ago to the effect that he would keep the few remaining idiots there up-to-date on his father's case. That obviously has not happened. No word from the kid (or any other family member) about Pete's loss at the Court of Appeals. And the kid apparently does not want to post any of the latest reports at this point -- especially the reports regarding (1) Pete's alleged forgery of the affidavit and motion, (2) Pete's apparently libelous statements about one of his own lawyers, (3) Pete's shameful exploitation of his own brother, Jack, and (4) the fact that Jack was forced to report Peter's actions to the Court, which may well result in a lengthened vacation in The Big House for Prevaricating Pete.

No, these are not happy times in the Hendrickson family.