Heresy among Hendrickson's losthorizons Heroes?

[Famspear]

Over at losthorizons, "victoria" is back. She writes:

March 2011 --- Submitted Form 4852 correcting errors in an unfortunately provided W-2 on file with the agency and provided by a private sector company.
1040 Form attached with correct numbers under the Tax Law, signed to be true accurate and complete.

Check received 3 weeks later for all amounts withheld as Income Tax, returned as required by law.

The CTC understanding of what the law says, and means, as deciphered by Pete Hendrickson - has allowed this money to be returned to the one who earned it, (however without interest). Had this money been in fact "income" a proper return would have reflected this, and 'returned' to the enabling establishment for privileged employment.

So, I hope no following "we made a mistake" form is sent, but once one knows the truth of what the law says, any arm twisting to change the facts will be redirected toward same legal testimony sworn as correct under oath by signature with attached copy of check.

Pete, thank you for your brilliance and sacrifice, God be with you - without you no victory of the rule of law could be announced, and funds wasted.

Truth Prevails in the end.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2783

Yeah.

Look, sweetie, the problem is that you ain't at "the end" yet.

User "wings" responds (bolding added):

a,
That indeed is sweet news, and the timing couldn't be better!

Congratulations on your victory for the rule of law. Praise to God and praise to Pete.....

Good grief....

Hopefully you will share some details with us so that other warriors don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Unfortunately the "wheel" that Peter Hendrickson "invented" -- in the form of the Cracking the Code tax evasion scam -- is, conceptually, a block of stone, such as one that you would perhaps see on a wagon in an old Flintstones cartoon.

And the scam is not even original with Pete. He took previous tax protester theories about the federal income tax somehow being limited to earnings in an "activity" involving a "privilege", and elaborated them.

A brilliant man is this Peter Eric Hendrickson. He took tax scam schemes that had already lost in court every time, and modified them so that they became even more complex theories that lost in court every time.

Oh, Hosanna, Pete! As Palm Sunday approaches, we sing your praises and throw flowers in your general direction. You are the Pete the Epitome -- the Pontificating, Preposterous, Prevaricating Prisoner!

[Pottapaug1938]

Hey, Victoria -- would you care to speculate as to where the Apostle of Code-Cracking, Peter Henderson, is at the moment? Surely, if there is any validity to "Cracking the Code", he's out enjoying the fine spring weather somewhere....

[Quixote]

So, I hope no following "we made a mistake" form is sent, ...

Not to worry, Victoria. The letter will say you, not the IRS, made the mistake. But you'll have the chance to convince the Tax Court that Pete understands the law better than they do. Truth will prevail in the end.

[LPC]

once one knows the truth of what the law says,

Once one finds some gibberish that seems to confirm what you want to believe (which just happens to be in your own self interest)...

any arm twisting to change the facts will be redirected toward same legal testimony sworn as correct under oath by signature with attached copy of check.

Which the courts will ignore once it is shown that the "legal testimony sworn as correct under oath" is FALSE.

The morons still cling to the fantasy that their "testimony" can never be contradicted by anyone or anything, a misconception that is too ridiculous to refute.

And they refuse to understand that Hendrickson himself is currently in jail because a jury agreed that he filed tax returns that were not just wrong, but were knowingly false.

[Gregg]

A brilliant man is this Peter Eric Hendrickson. He took tax scam schemes that had already lost in court every time, and modified them so that they became even more complex theories that lost in court every time.

Oh, Hosanna, Pete! As Palm Sunday approaches, we sing your praises and throw flowers in your general direction. You are the Pete the Epitome -- the Pontificating, Preposterous, Prevaricating Prisoner!

His friends call him inmate #15406-039

[Pottapaug1938]

Oh, Hosanna, Pete! As Palm Sunday approaches, we sing your praises and throw flowers in your general direction. You are the Pete the Epitome -- the Pontificating, Preposterous, Prevaricating Prisoner!

If I'm going to do anything in Pete's "general direction", I will follow the example of the Frenchman in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

[grixit]

That indeed is sweet news, and the timing couldn't be better!

Congratulations on your victory for the rule of law. Praise to God and praise to Pete.....

Oh, Hosanna, Pete! As Palm Sunday approaches, we sing your praises and throw flowers in your general direction. You are the Pete the Epitome -- the Pontificating, Preposterous, Prevaricating Prisoner!

Peace Be Unto Him.

[ArthurWankspittle]

His friends call him inmate #15406-039

Do they just call him 039 once they know him a bit better?

[Famspear]

Crackhead "earthshake" at losthorizons is sounding a bit despondent:

I think what is working is the $5k penalty and guaranteed battle that we face now, which we will most likely lose because they now have Pete's case to point to.

Is there really still a battle we can sanely wage? I mean you and many others have done all you can, and didn't "win". I am re-energized every time I pick up the book. Then reality sets in, and I feel like my efforts are in vain.

What I need to understand is, is there anything one can say/point to/bring up once auntie adds something to the friv list? Does the fact that the Truth is now on the list and being called false, make it an automatic loss after the "formality" of the hearing/trial? Do they no longer have to prove anything after one case??

Then I remember that they NEVER have to prove anything because the burden falls on us, lol!

The sad part is I have no idea how to revitalize this "movement" because when it was just the Truth, and not complicated with Pete's "loss", it was already too complex to discuss easily (thanks to the intentional public school dumbing-down of our society).

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4587#27818

And sadly, he/she concludes:

The only person I have heard of who won is Tommy Cryer, and of course he's an attorney, and I believe he never filed, not having info returns to deal with.

(sigh....)

[ashlynne39]

Crackhead "earthshake" at losthorizons is sounding a bit despondent:

I think what is working is the $5k penalty and guaranteed battle that we face now, which we will most likely lose because they now have Pete's case to point to.

Is there really still a battle we can sanely wage? I mean you and many others have done all you can, and didn't "win". I am re-energized every time I pick up the book. Then reality sets in, and I feel like my efforts are in vain.

What I need to understand is, is there anything one can say/point to/bring up once auntie adds something to the friv list? Does the fact that the Truth is now on the list and being called false, make it an automatic loss after the "formality" of the hearing/trial? Do they no longer have to prove anything after one case??

Then I remember that they NEVER have to prove anything because the burden falls on us, lol!

The sad part is I have no idea how to revitalize this "movement" because when it was just the Truth, and not complicated with Pete's "loss", it was already too complex to discuss easily (thanks to the intentional public school dumbing-down of our society).

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4587#27818

And sadly, he/she concludes:

The only person I have heard of who won is Tommy Cryer, and of course he's an attorney, and I believe he never filed, not having info returns to deal with.

(sigh....)

Not to fear, Earthshake has a new idea and JHV thinks it might get the IRS to fold
http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2804

I'm thinking about using these stipulation of facts and wanted to get some feedback:

Appellee stipulates to the fact that all of Appellant's disputed earnings originated from Name of Private Company, Inc.

Appellee stipulates to the fact that Name of Private Company, Inc. is located at LOCATION.

Appellee stipulates to the fact that Name of Private Company, Inc., is owned by OWNERS NAMES.

Thinking that this clarifies the fact that my husband's earnings are non-privieledged...thoughts? Worth it or waste of time?

Thanks,
es

[notorial dissent]

Can we say clueless for $5,000 please??

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think what is working is the $5k penalty ....

You bet! The IRS playing the "-$5000" card probably concentrates the minds of lots of people.

[The Observer]

You bet! The IRS playing the "-$5000" card probably concentrates the minds of lots of people.

The problem is that a lot of these TPs pick the "Double Jeopardy" category and bet everything they have...

[Gregg]

Is my memory faulty or am I correct in recalling that one of the crackheads rang up something like $40K in friv pens for a single year? Is that a Patrick Mooney record maybe?

[LPC]

I'm thinking about using these stipulation of facts and wanted to get some feedback:

Appellee stipulates to the fact that all of Appellant's disputed earnings originated from Name of Private Company, Inc.

Appellee stipulates to the fact that Name of Private Company, Inc. is located at LOCATION.

Appellee stipulates to the fact that Name of Private Company, Inc., is owned by OWNERS NAMES.

Thinking that this clarifies the fact that my husband's earnings are non-privieledged...thoughts?

1. The fact that the "disputed earnings" belong to the appellant, and not the appellee, means that earthquake's husband has already lost at the trial level and is now going for frivolous appeal sanctions.

2. Stipulations are usually neither needed nor wanted at the appellate level, because there is already a record from the court below and it's really too late to start trying to clarify the facts. (If a necessary fact isn't clear from the record, then the party with the burden of proof loses.)

3. Earthquake still doesn't understand that the whole "non-privileged" nonsense is NOT WHAT THE LAW IS. Her husband is going to lose (again) on appeal because the law is against him and not because of any "fact" she imagines needs to be "clarified."

[LPC]

Is my memory faulty or am I correct in recalling that one of the crackheads rang up something like $40K in friv pens for a single year?

"Hangemhigh" reported being assessed $100,000 in penalties for seven tax years.

See viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5189

[notorial dissent]

Doesn't get it is the hallmark of earthshake's whole monologue. She doesn't seem to clue in to the fact that the "facts" about her husband's earnings and employment are not in question and never were. The "non-privileged" nonsense is what is shooting them down, as it always will.

I don't know from her ramblings if hubby has racked up a priv pen yet, but he certainly will if the proceed with this round of nonsense, and she'll still be bewildered when it happens.

[The Operative]

I don't know from her ramblings if hubby has racked up a priv pen yet, but he certainly will if the proceed with this round of nonsense, and she'll still be bewildered when it happens.

Based upon the ramblings quoted in this thread, I would imagine the friv pen for the applicable years may have already been assessed. What earthshake and her hubby seem to be attempting to get now is the $25,000 sanction for a frivolous appeal.

[LPC]

What earthshake and her hubby seem to be attempting to get now is the $25,000 sanction for a frivolous appeal.

Technical correction: The $25,000 figure comes from a special statutory provision for the Tax Court which allows it to impose "a penalty not in excess of $25,000" when an appeal is frivolous or groundless, instituted primarily for delay, or the taxpayer has unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies. IRC section 6673. Because it is in the nature of penalty, it is not necessarily related to the time or expense incurred by the IRS in contesting the petition.

The Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 allows an appeals court to "award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee" when an appeal is frivolous. So the appellate sanctions are not necessarily limited to $25,000, but are unlikely to get that high due to the nature of "just damages" and "double costs."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 has a different standard, because a court may impose an "appropriate sanction" which "must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated" and can be monetary or non-monetary (although for a frivolous complaint the most likely sanction would be monetary).

[Quixote]

Doesn't get it is the hallmark of earthshake's whole monologue. She doesn't seem to clue in to the fact that the "facts" about her husband's earnings and employment are not in question and never were. The "non-privileged" nonsense is what is shooting them down, as it always will.

That is 95% of the discussion on LH. It never occurs to them to question their fundamental misunderstanding. They prefer convoluted and occasionally incomprehensible theories as to why the judge ignored the facts.